A Smart Shoe Insole to Monitor Frail Older Adults' Walking Speed: Results of Two Evaluation Phases Completed in a Living Lab and Through a 12-Week Pilot Study

Antoine Piau, Zara Steinmeyer, Yoann Charlon, Laetitia Courbet, Vincent Rialle, Benoit Lepage, Eric Campo, Fati Nourhashemi, Antoine Piau, Zara Steinmeyer, Yoann Charlon, Laetitia Courbet, Vincent Rialle, Benoit Lepage, Eric Campo, Fati Nourhashemi

Abstract

Background: Recent World Health Organization reports propose wearable devices to collect information on activity and walking speed as innovative health indicators. However, mainstream consumer-grade tracking devices and smartphone apps are often inaccurate and require long-term acceptability assessment.

Objective: Our aim is to assess the user acceptability of an instrumented shoe insole in frail older adults. This device monitors participants' walking speed and differentiates active walking from shuffling after step length calibration.

Methods: A multiphase evaluation has been designed: 9 older adults were evaluated in a living lab for a day, 3 older adults were evaluated at home for a month, and a prospective randomized trial included 35 older adults at home for 3 months. A qualitative research design using face-to-face and phone semistructured interviews was performed. Our hypothesis was that this shoe insole was acceptable in monitoring long-term outdoor and indoor walking. The primary outcome was participants' acceptability, measured by a qualitative questionnaire and average time of insole wearing per day. The secondary outcome described physical frailty evolution in both groups.

Results: Living lab results confirmed the importance of a multiphase design study with participant involvement. Participants proposed insole modifications. Overall acceptability had mixed results: low scores for reliability (2.1 out of 6) and high scores for usability (4.3 out of 6) outcomes. The calibration phase raised no particular concern. During the field test, a majority of participants (mean age 79 years) were very (10/16) or quite satisfied (3/16) with the insole's comfort at the end of the follow-up. Participant insole acceptability evolved as follows: 63% (12/19) at 1 month, 50% (9/18) at 2 months, and 75% (12/16) at 3 months. A total of 9 participants in the intervention group discontinued the intervention because of technical issues. All participants equipped for more than a week reported wearing the insole every day at 1 month, 83% (15/18) at 2 months, and 94% (15/16) at 3 months for 5.8, 6.3, and 5.1 hours per day, respectively. Insole data confirmed that participants effectively wore the insole without significant decline during follow-up for an average of 13.5 days per 4 months and 5.6 hours per day. For secondary end points, the change in frailty parameters or quality of life did not differ for those randomly assigned to the intervention group compared to usual care.

Conclusions: Our study reports acceptability data on an instrumented insole in indoor and outdoor walking with remote monitoring in frail older adults under real-life conditions. To date, there is limited data in this population set. This thin instrumentation, including a flexible battery, was a technical challenge and seems to provide an acceptable solution over time that is valued by participants. However, users still raised certain acceptability issues. Given the growing interest in wearable health care devices, these results will be useful for future developments.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02316600; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02316600.

Keywords: activity tracker; frail older adults; outpatient monitoring; shoe insert; walking speed.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Antoine Piau, Zara Steinmeyer, Yoann Charlon, Laetitia Courbet, Vincent Rialle, Benoit Lepage, Eric Campo, Fati Nourhashemi. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 05.07.2021.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Description of the evaluation phases.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overall technological device description. It includes a pair of insoles, an induction charger fitting in the shoe, a touchpad to collect data from the insole and provide feedback to the user, a secure remote database, and a web application for the patient and the physician. The insole is 2.5 mm at its thickest point (arch); it has a buffer memory and a flexible battery for walking comfort. If the battery is not recharged, an alert is issued to the user. The touchpad is presented here with a diagram of average walking speed and a diagram reporting active walking minutes.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Active walking definition. The insole accounts for steps in any case.
Figure 4
Figure 4
CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) flow diagram.

References

    1. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, Seeman T, Tracy R, Kop WJ, Burke G, McBurnie MA, Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Mar;56(3):M146–56. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146.
    1. Metzelthin SF, van Rossum E, de Witte LP, Ambergen AW, Hobma SO, Sipers W, Kempen GIJM. Effectiveness of interdisciplinary primary care approach to reduce disability in community dwelling frail older people: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013 Sep 10;347:f5264. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5264.
    1. Pahor M, Guralnik JM, Ambrosius WT, Blair S, Bonds DE, Church TS, Espeland MA, Fielding RA, Gill TM, Groessl EJ, King AC, Kritchevsky SB, Manini TM, McDermott MM, Miller ME, Newman AB, Rejeski WJ, Sink KM, Williamson JD, LIFE study investigators Effect of structured physical activity on prevention of major mobility disability in older adults: the LIFE study randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014 Jun 18;311(23):2387–96. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5616.
    1. Dedeyne L, Deschodt M, Verschueren S, Tournoy J, Gielen E. Effects of multi-domain interventions in (pre)frail elderly on frailty, functional, and cognitive status: a systematic review. Clin Interv Aging. 2017;12:873–896. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S130794.
    1. Beard JR, Officer A, de Carvalho IA, Sadana R, Pot AM, Michel J, Lloyd-Sherlock P, Epping-Jordan JE, Peeters GMEEG, Mahanani WR, Thiyagarajan JA, Chatterji S. The World report on ageing and health: a policy framework for healthy ageing. Lancet. 2016 May 21;387(10033):2145–2154. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00516-4.
    1. Cesari M, Araujo de Carvalho I, Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan J, Cooper C, Martin FC, Reginster J, Vellas B, Beard JR. Evidence for the domains supporting the construct of intrinsic capacity. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018 Nov 10;73(12):1653–1660. doi: 10.1093/gerona/gly011.
    1. Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Penninx BWHJ, Nicklas BJ, Simonsick EM, Newman AB, Tylavsky FA, Brach JS, Satterfield S, Bauer DC, Visser M, Rubin SM, Harris TB, Pahor M. Prognostic value of usual gait speed in well-functioning older people--results from the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Oct;53(10):1675–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53501.x.
    1. Purser JL, Kuchibhatla MN, Fillenbaum GG, Harding T, Peterson ED, Alexander KP. Identifying frailty in hospitalized older adults with significant coronary artery disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Nov;54(11):1674–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00914.x.
    1. Piau A, Mattek N, Crissey R, Beattie Z, Dodge H, Kaye J. When will my patient fall? Sensor-based in-home walking speed identifies future falls in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020 Apr 17;75(5):968–973. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glz128.
    1. Wild KV, Mattek N, Austin D, Kaye JA. "Are You Sure?": lapses in self-reported activities among healthy older adults reporting online. J Appl Gerontol. 2016 Jun;35(6):627–41. doi: 10.1177/0733464815570667.
    1. Liu S, Eaton CB, Driban JB, McAlindon TE, Lapane KL. Comparison of self-report and objective measures of physical activity in US adults with osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2016 Oct;36(10):1355–64. doi: 10.1007/s00296-016-3537-9.
    1. Lyons BE, Austin D, Seelye A, Petersen J, Yeargers J, Riley T, Sharma N, Mattek N, Wild K, Dodge H, Kaye JA. Pervasive computing technologies to continuously assess Alzheimer's disease progression and intervention efficacy. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015;7:102. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00102.
    1. Kaye JA, Maxwell SA, Mattek N, Hayes TL, Dodge H, Pavel M, Jimison HB, Wild K, Boise L, Zitzelberger TA. Intelligent systems for assessing aging changes: home-based, unobtrusive, and continuous assessment of aging. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011 Jul;66 Suppl 1:i180–90. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbq095.
    1. Seelye A, Mattek N, Sharma N, Riley T, Austin J, Wild K, Dodge HH, Lore E, Kaye J. Weekly observations of online survey metadata obtained through home computer use allow for detection of changes in everyday cognition before transition to mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement. 2018 Feb;14(2):187–194. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.07.756.
    1. Taylor LM, Klenk J, Maney AJ, Kerse N, Macdonald BM, Maddison R. Validation of a body-worn accelerometer to measure activity patterns in octogenarians. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 May;95(5):930–4. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.01.013.
    1. de Bruin ED, Hartmann A, Uebelhart D, Murer K, Zijlstra W. Wearable systems for monitoring mobility-related activities in older people: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22(10-11):878–95. doi: 10.1177/0269215508090675.
    1. Kramer J, Kowatsch T. Using feedback to promote physical activity: the role of the feedback sign. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 02;19(6):e192. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7012.
    1. Geraedts H, Zijlstra A, Bulstra SK, Stevens M, Zijlstra W. Effects of remote feedback in home-based physical activity interventions for older adults: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Apr;91(1):14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.10.018.
    1. Orr K, Howe HS, Omran J, Smith KA, Palmateer TM, Ma AE, Faulkner G. Validity of smartphone pedometer applications. BMC Res Notes. 2015 Nov 30;8:733. doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1705-8.
    1. Toosizadeh N, Joseph B, Heusser MR, Orouji Jokar T, Mohler J, Phelan HA, Najafi B. Assessing upper-extremity motion: an innovative, objective method to identify frailty in older bed-bound trauma patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Aug;223(2):240–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.03.030.
    1. Piau A, Wild K. Performance of e-health devices for frailty evaluation in real-life settings is far from being demonstrated. Gerontology. 2019;65(3):309–310. doi: 10.1159/000495208.
    1. Schwenk M, Howe C, Saleh A, Mohler J, Grewal G, Armstrong D, Najafi B. Frailty and technology: a systematic review of gait analysis in those with frailty. Gerontology. 2014;60(1):79–89. doi: 10.1159/000354211.
    1. Gomersall SR, Ng N, Burton NW, Pavey TG, Gilson ND, Brown WJ. Estimating physical activity and sedentary behavior in a free-living context: a pragmatic comparison of consumer-based activity trackers and ActiGraph accelerometry. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Sep 07;18(9):e239. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5531.
    1. Block VAJ, Pitsch E, Tahir P, Cree BAC, Allen DD, Gelfand JM. Remote physical activity monitoring in neurological disease: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0154335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154335.
    1. Ngueleu AM, Blanchette AK, Maltais D, Moffet H, McFadyen BJ, Bouyer L, Batcho CS. Validity of instrumented insoles for step counting, posture and activity recognition: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel) 2019 May 28;19(11):2438. doi: 10.3390/s19112438.
    1. Piau A, Charlon Y, Campo E, Vellas B, Nourhashemi F. A smart insole to promote healthy aging for frail elderly individuals: specifications, design, and preliminary results. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015 May 25;2(1):e5. doi: 10.2196/rehab.4084.
    1. Mariani B, Hoskovec C, Rochat S, Büla C, Penders J, Aminian K. 3D gait assessment in young and elderly subjects using foot-worn inertial sensors. J Biomech. 2010 Nov 16;43(15):2999–3006. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.07.003.
    1. Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, Guthrie B, Lester H, Wilson P, Kinmonth AL. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ. 2007 Mar 03;334(7591):455–9. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Sorenson C, Drummond M, Borlum KF, Busse R. How can the impact of health technology assessments be enhanced? Policy Brief – WHO European Ministerial Conference on Health Systems. Health Systems and Policy Analysis; February 2008; Geneva. 2008. Feb,
    1. Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, Johnson M, Kaltenthaler E, Paisley S, Papaioannou D, Shippam A. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review. Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii–iv, ix. doi: 10.3310/hta14250.
    1. Arain M, Campbell MJ, Cooper CL, Lancaster GA. What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jul 16;10:67. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-67.
    1. Sparling PB, Howard BJ, Dunstan DW, Owen N. Recommendations for physical activity in older adults. BMJ. 2015 Jan 21;350:h100. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h100.
    1. Katz S, Ford A, Moskiwitz R. Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963 Sep 21;185:914–9.
    1. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189–98. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6.
    1. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9(3):179–86.
    1. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Simonsick EM, Salive ME, Wallace RB. Lower-extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability. N Engl J Med. 1995 Mar 02;332(9):556–61. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199503023320902.
    1. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, Arnold DL, Wolfson C. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1-3):21–30. doi: 10.1080/09638280110066352.
    1. Ware JE, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):903–12. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00081-x.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095–108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. Hsieh H, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277–88. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
    1. Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 May;10(2):307–12. doi: 10.1111/j..2002.384.doc.x.
    1. Eysenbach G, CONSORT-EHEALTH Group CONSORT-EHEALTH: improving and standardizing evaluation reports of Web-based and mobile health interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 31;13(4):e126. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1923.
    1. Martin Schepers H, van Asseldonk EHF, Baten CTM, Veltink PH. Ambulatory estimation of foot placement during walking using inertial sensors. J Biomech. 2010 Dec 01;43(16):3138–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.07.039.
    1. Tien I, Glaser SD, Bajcsy R, Goodin DS, Aminoff MJ. Results of using a wireless inertial measuring system to quantify gait motions in control subjects. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2010 Jul;14(4):904–15. doi: 10.1109/TITB.2009.2021650.
    1. Chow CK, Redfern J, Hillis GS, Thakkar J, Santo K, Hackett ML, Jan S, Graves N, de Keizer L, Barry T, Bompoint S, Stepien S, Whittaker R, Rodgers A, Thiagalingam A. Effect of lifestyle-focused text messaging on risk factor modification in patients with coronary heart disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(12):1255–63. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.10945.
    1. Bickmore TW, Silliman RA, Nelson K, Cheng DM, Winter M, Henault L, Paasche-Orlow MK. A randomized controlled trial of an automated exercise coach for older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Oct;61(10):1676–83. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12449.
    1. van het Reve E, Silveira P, Daniel F, Casati F, de Bruin ED. Tablet-based strength-balance training to motivate and improve adherence to exercise in independently living older people: part 2 of a phase II preclinical exploratory trial. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jun 25;16(6):e159. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3055.
    1. Kwan RY, Lee D, Lee PH, Tse M, Cheung DS, Thiamwong L, Choi K. Effects of an mHealth brisk walking intervention on increasing physical activity in older people with cognitive frailty: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jul 31;8(7):e16596. doi: 10.2196/16596.
    1. Adlam T, Ulrich E, Kent M, Malinzak L. Frailty testing pilot study: pros and pitfalls. J Clin Med Res. 2018 Feb;10(2):82–87. doi: 10.14740/jocmr3203w.
    1. Gilgen-Ammann R, Schweizer T, Wyss T. Accuracy of distance recordings in eight positioning-enabled sport watches: instrument validation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jun 24;8(6):e17118. doi: 10.2196/17118.
    1. Katzan I, Schuster A, Kinzy T. Physical activity monitoring using a Fitbit device in ischemic stroke patients: prospective cohort feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Jan 19;9(1):e14494. doi: 10.2196/14494.
    1. Huijben B, van Schooten K, van Dieën JH, Pijnappels M. The effect of walking speed on quality of gait in older adults. Gait Posture. 2018 Sep;65:112–116. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.07.004.
    1. Dijkstra B, Kamsma Y, Zijlstra W. Detection of gait and postures using a miniaturised triaxial accelerometer-based system: accuracy in community-dwelling older adults. Age Ageing. 2010 Mar;39(2):259–62. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afp249.
    1. Hollewand AM, Spijkerman AG, Bilo HJG, Kleefstra N, Kamsma Y, van Hateren KJJ. Validity of an accelerometer-based activity monitor system for measuring physical activity in frail older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2016 Oct;24(4):555–558. doi: 10.1123/japa.2014-0290.
    1. Culhane KM, Lyons GM, Hilton D, Grace PA, Lyons D. Long-term mobility monitoring of older adults using accelerometers in a clinical environment. Clin Rehabil. 2004 May;18(3):335–43. doi: 10.1191/0269215504cr734oa.
    1. Kim B, McKay SM, Lee J. Consumer-grade wearable device for predicting frailty in Canadian home care service clients: prospective Observational proof-of-concept study. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Sep 03;22(9):e19732. doi: 10.2196/19732.
    1. Kaye J, Mattek N, Dodge H, Buracchio T, Austin D, Hagler S, Pavel M, Hayes T. One walk a year to 1000 within a year: continuous in-home unobtrusive gait assessment of older adults. Gait Posture. 2012 Feb;35(2):197–202. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.09.006.
    1. Najafi Bijan, Khan Tahir, Wrobel James. Laboratory in a box: wearable sensors and its advantages for gait analysis. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:6507–10. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091605.
    1. Seo M, Shin M, Park TS, Park J. Clinometric gait analysis using smart insoles in patients with hemiplegia after stroke: pilot study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Sep 10;8(9):e22208. doi: 10.2196/22208.
    1. Dodge HH, Zhu J, Harvey D, Saito N, Silbert LC, Kaye JA, Koeppe RA, Albin RL, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative Biomarker progressions explain higher variability in stage-specific cognitive decline than baseline values in Alzheimer disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2014 Nov;10(6):690–703. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2014.04.513.
    1. Piau A, Wild K, Mattek N, Kaye J. Current state of digital biomarker technologies for real-life, home-based monitoring of cognitive Function for Mild Cognitive Impairment to Mild Alzheimer Disease and Implications for clinical care: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Aug 30;21(8):e12785. doi: 10.2196/12785.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa