Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorQuiroga Torres, Daniel Alejandro
dc.contributor.authorCruz, Antonio Miguel
dc.contributor.authorMonsalve, Laura
dc.contributor.authorLadurner, Anna-Maria
dc.contributor.authorJaime, Luisa Fernanda
dc.contributor.authorWang, Daniel
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-24T20:25:52Z
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-01T17:16:55Z
dc.date.available2021-05-24
dc.date.available2021-10-01T17:16:55Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn2152-5250
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.escuelaing.edu.co/handle/001/1473
dc.description.abstractFrailty is a prevalent condition among Canadians; over one million are diagnosed as medically frail, and in the next ten years this number will double. Information and telecommunication technologies can provide a low-cost method for managing frailty more proactively. This study aims to examine the range and extent of information and telecommunication technologies for managing frailty in older adults, their technology readiness level, the evidence, and the associated outcomes. A systematic literature review was conducted. Four databases were searched for studies: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. In total, we included 19 studies (out of 9,930) for the data abstraction. Overall, our findings indicate that (1) the proposed frailty phenotype is the most common ground truth to be used for assessing frailty; (2) the most common uses of information and telecommunication technologies for managing frailty are detection, and monitoring and detection, while interventional studies on frailty are very rare; (3) the five main types of information and telecommunication technologies for managing frailty in older adults are information and telecommunication technology-based platforms, smartphones, telemonitoring (home monitoring), wearable sensors and devices (commercial off-the-shelf), and multimedia formats for online access; (4) the technology readiness level of information and telecommunication technologies for managing frailty in older adults is the “Technology Demonstration” level, i.e., not yet ready to be operated in an actual operating environment; and (5) the level of evidence is still low for information and telecommunication technology studies that manage frailty in older adults. In conclusion, information and telecommunication technologies for managing frailty in the older adult population are not yet ready to be full-fledged technologies for this purpose.spa
dc.description.abstractLa fragilidad es una condición prevalente entre los canadienses; más de un millón son diagnosticados como médicamente frágiles, y en los próximos diez años este número se duplicará. Las tecnologías de la información y las telecomunicaciones pueden proporcionar un método de bajo coste para gestionar la fragilidad de forma más proactiva. Este estudio tiene como objetivo examinar la gama y el alcance de las tecnologías de la información y las telecomunicaciones para la gestión de la fragilidad en los adultos mayores, su nivel de preparación tecnológica, la evidencia y los resultados asociados. Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura. Se buscaron estudios en cuatro bases de datos: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL y Web of Science. En total, se incluyeron 19 estudios (de 9.930) para la extracción de datos. En general, nuestros resultados indican que (1) el fenotipo de fragilidad propuesto es la verdad básica más comúnmente utilizada para evaluar la fragilidad; (2) los usos más comunes de las tecnologías de la información y las telecomunicaciones para gestionar la fragilidad son la detección, y la monitorización y detección, mientras que los estudios de intervención sobre la fragilidad son muy raros; (3) los cinco tipos principales de tecnologías de la información y las telecomunicaciones para la gestión de la fragilidad en los adultos mayores son las plataformas basadas en la tecnología de la información y las telecomunicaciones, los teléfonos inteligentes, la telemonitorización (seguimiento en el hogar), los sensores y dispositivos portátiles (comerciales), y los formatos multimedia para el acceso en línea; (4) el nivel de preparación tecnológica de las tecnologías de la información y las telecomunicaciones para la gestión de la fragilidad en los adultos mayores es el nivel de "Demostración de Tecnología", es decir. e., (5) el nivel de evidencia es todavía bajo para los estudios de las tecnologías de la información y las telecomunicaciones que gestionan la fragilidad en los adultos mayores. En conclusión, las tecnologías de la información y las telecomunicaciones para gestionar la fragilidad en la población de adultos mayores aún no están listas para ser tecnologías de pleno derecho para este propósito.spa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.language.isoengspa
dc.publisherInternational Society on Aging and Diseasespa
dc.sourcehttp://www.aginganddisease.org/EN/10.14336/AD.2020.1114spa
dc.titleInformation and Communication Technologies for managing frailty: a systematic literature reviewspa
dc.typeArtículo de revistaspa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionspa
oaire.accessrightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_14cbspa
oaire.versionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85spa
dc.contributor.researchgroupGiBiomespa
dc.identifier.doi10.14336/AD.2020.1114
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.14336/ad.2020.1114
dc.publisher.placeEstados Unidosspa
dc.relation.citationendpage20spa
dc.relation.citationissue3spa
dc.relation.citationstartpage1spa
dc.relation.citationvolume12spa
dc.relation.indexedN/Aspa
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAging and Diseasespa
dc.relation.referencesTheou O, Brothers TD, Peña FG, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K (2014). Identifying common characteristics of frailty across seven scales. J Am Geriatr Soc. May, 62:901-6.spa
dc.relation.referencesFried L, Walston J (1998). Frailty and failure to thrive. In: Hazzard W, editor. Principles of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1387-402.spa
dc.relation.referencesRockwood K, Howlett SE (2018). Fifteen years of progress in understanding frailty and health in aging. BMC Med, 16:220.spa
dc.relation.referencesKuchel GA (2018). Frailty and Resilience as Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials and Geriatric Care: Are We Getting Any Closer? J Am Geriatr Soc, 66:1451-454.spa
dc.relation.referencesO’Caoimh R, Molloy DW, Fitzgerald C, Van Velsen L, Cabrita M, Nassabi MH, et al. (2018). ICT-supported interventions targeting pre-frailty: Healthcare recommendations from the personalised ICT supported service for independent living and active ageing (PERSSILAA) study. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 869: 69-92.spa
dc.relation.referencesChen AT, Ge S, Cho S, Teng AK, Chu F, Demiris G, et al. (2020). Reactions to COVID-19, information and technology use, and social connectedness among older adults with pre-frailty and frailty. Geriatr Nurs, Aug 10: S0197-4572(20)30245-7.spa
dc.relation.referencesChtourou H, Trabelsi K, H'mida C, Boukhris O, Glenn JM, Brach M, et al. (2020). Staying Physically Active During the Quarantine and Self-Isolation Period for Controlling and Mitigating the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Overview of the Literature. Front Psychol, 11:1708.spa
dc.relation.referencesGreiwe J, Nyenhuis SM (2020). Wearable Technology and How This Can Be Implemented into Clinical Practice. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep, 20:36.spa
dc.relation.referencesDasenbrock L, Heinks A, Schwenk M, Bauer JM (2016). Technology-based measurements for screening, monitoring and preventing frailty. Z Gerontol Geriatr, 49:581-95.spa
dc.relation.referencesMugueta-Aguinaga I, Garcia-Zapirain B (2017). Is Technology Present in Frailty? Technology a Back-up Tool for Dealing with Frailty in the Elderly: A Systematic Review. Aging Dis, 8:176-95.spa
dc.relation.referencesSelak Š, Bacaicoa O, Gabrovec B (2019). Can we manage frailty at individual level by the use of information and communication technologies: A narrative literature review. Zdravniski Vestnik, 88:249-62.spa
dc.relation.referencesGallucci A, Trimarchi PD, Abbate C, Tuena C, Pedroli E, Lattanzio F, et al. (2020). ICT technologies as new promising tools for the managing of frailty: a systematic review. Aging Clin Exp Res. doi: . Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s40520-020-01626-9spa
dc.relation.referencesZhang P, Aikman S, Sun H (2008). Two types of attitudes in ICT acceptance and use. International Journal of Human Interaction, 24: 628-48.spa
dc.relation.referencesDOE. Department of Energy Technology Readiness, Assessment Guide. Washginton, DC: Office of Management. Department of Energy; 2009.spa
dc.relation.referencesAcampora G, Cook D, Rashidi P, Vasilakos A (2013). A Survey on Ambient Intelligence in Healthcare. Proceedings of the IEEE, 101:2470-2494.spa
dc.relation.referencesLiu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, Miguel-Cruz A, Rios Rincon A (2016). Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform, 91:44-59spa
dc.relation.referencesSchrijvers G (2009). Disease management: a proposal for a new definition. Int J Integr Care, 9: e06.spa
dc.relation.referencesArksey H, O’Malley L (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol, 8:19-32.spa
dc.relation.referencesMiguel-Cruz A, Ríos-Rincón AM, Rodríguez Dueñas W, Quiroga Torres D, Bohórquez-Heredia A (2017). What does the literature say about using robots on children with disabilities? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 12:429-40.spa
dc.relation.referencesLiberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical research ed)., 339:b2700.spa
dc.relation.referencesNeubauer N, Lapierre N, Rios-Rincon A, Miguel-Cruz A, Rousseau J, Liu L (2018). What do we know about technologies for dementia-related wandering? A scoping review. Can J Occup Ther, 85:196-208.spa
dc.relation.referencesPortney LG, Watkins MP Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River. N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009.spa
dc.relation.referencesFried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. (2001). Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 56:M146-56.spa
dc.relation.referencesRockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, Bergman H, Hogan D, McDowell I, et al. (2005). A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people, 173: 489-95.spa
dc.relation.referencesRolfson D, Majumdar S, Tsuyuki R, Tahir A, Rockwood K (2006). Validity and reliability of the Edmonton Frail Scale. Age Ageing, 35:526-29.spa
dc.relation.referencesGobbens RJ, van Assen MA, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JM (2010). The Tilburg Frailty Indicator: psychometric properties. J Am Med Dir Assoc,11: 2010 344-55.spa
dc.relation.referencesSchwenk M, Mohler J, Wendel C, D'Huyvetter K, Fain M, Taylor-Piliae R, et al. (2015). Wearable sensor-based in-home assessment of gait, balance, and physical activity for discrimination of frailty status: baseline results of the Arizona frailty cohort study. Gerontology,61:258-67.spa
dc.relation.referencesParvaneh S, Mohler J, Toosizadeh N, Grewal GS, Najafi B (2017). Postural Transitions during Activities of Daily Living Could Identify Frailty Status: Application of Wearable Technology to Identify Frailty during Unsupervised Condition. Gerontology,63:479-87.spa
dc.relation.referencesLin CC, Chen CC, Lin PS, Lee RG, Huang JS, Tsai TH, et al. (2016). Development of Home-Based Frailty Detection Device Using Wireless Sensor Networks. J Med Biol Eng, 36:168-77.spa
dc.relation.referencesTegou T, Kalamaras I, Tsipouras M, Giannakeas N, Votis K, Tzovaras D (2019). A Low-Cost Indoor Activity Monitoring System for Detecting Frailty in Older Adults. Sensors (Basel), 19:452.spa
dc.relation.referencesRazjouyan J, Naik AD, Horstman MJ, Kunik ME, Amirmazaheri M, Zhou H, et al. (2018). Wearable Sensors and the Assessment of Frailty among Vulnerable Older Adults: An Observational Cohort Study. Sensors, 18:1336.spa
dc.relation.referencesAlmeida A, Mulero R, Rametta P, Urošević V, Andrić M, Patrono L (2019). A critical analysis of an IoT—aware AAL system for elderly monitoring. Future gener comp sy, 97:598-619.spa
dc.relation.referencesTsipouras MG, Giannakeas N, Tegou T, Kalamaras I, Votis K, Tzovaras D (2018). Assessing the frailty of older people using bluetooth beacons data. In: Assessing the frailty of older people using bluetooth beacons data. In: International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications, 5-11.spa
dc.relation.referencesAznar-Tortonda V, Palazón-Bru A, la Rosa D, Espínola-Morel V, Pérez-Pérez BF, León-Ruiz AB, et al. (2019). Detection of frailty in older patients using a mobile app: cross-sectional observational study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract,70:e29-e35.spa
dc.relation.referencesFontecha J, Navarro FJ, Hervás R, Bravo J (2013). Elderly frailty detection by using accelerometer-enabled smartphones and clinical information records. Pers Ubiquitous Comput,17:1073-083.spa
dc.relation.referencesToufik G, Voilmy D, Raymonet A, Piau A, Novella JL, Chkeir A (2019). Multimodal corpus recorded by elderly people at home with elaboration of an adapted ihm. In: Multimodal corpus recorded by elderly people at home with elaboration of an adapted ihm. In: BioSMART 2019-Proceedings: 3rd International Conference on Bio-Engineering for Smart Technologies. Paris; France, 1-5.spa
dc.relation.referencesGokalp H, de Folter J, Verma V, Fursse J, Jones R, Clarke M (2018). Integrated Telehealth and Telecare for Monitoring Frail Elderly with Chronic Disease. Telemed J E Health ,24:940-57.spa
dc.relation.referencesCastro LA, Favela J, Quintana E, Perez M (2015). Behavioral data gathering for assessing functional status and health in older adults using mobile phones. Pers Ubiquitous Comput,19:379-91.spa
dc.relation.referencesChkeir A, Novella JL, Dramé M, Bera D, Collart M, Duchêne J (2019). In-home physical frailty monitoring: relevance with respect to clinical tests. BMC Geriatr,19:34.spa
dc.relation.referencesAbril-Jiménez P, Rojo Lacal J, de Los Ríos PérezS, Páramo M, Montalvá Colomer JB, Arredondo Waldmeyer MT (2020). Ageing-friendly cities for assessing older adults' decline: IoT-based system for continuous monitoring of frailty risks using smart city infrastructure. Aging Clin Exp Res, 32:663-71.spa
dc.relation.referencesMulasso A, Brustio PR, Rainoldi A, Zia G, Feletti L, N'dja A, et al. (2019). A comparison between an ICT tool and a traditional physical measure for frailty evaluation in older adults. BMC Geriatr,19:88.spa
dc.relation.referencesDupuy L, Froger C, Consel C, Sauzéon H (2017). Everyday Functioning Benefits from an Assisted Living Platform amongst Frail Older Adults and Their Caregivers. Front Aging Neurosci, 9:302.spa
dc.relation.referencesJang IY, Kim HR, Lee E, Jung HW, Park H, Cheon SH, et al. (2018). Impact of a Wearable Device-BaseWalking Programs in Rural Older Adults on Physical Activity and Health Outcomes: Cohort Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6:e11335.spa
dc.relation.referencesLee SC, Tsai JM, Tsai LY, Liang LJ, Wu CP (2019). Promoting physical activity and reducing frailty of middle-aged and older adults in community: The effects of a health promotion program combining smart phone learning and exercise. International Journal of Gerontology,13:320-24.spa
dc.relation.referencesSearle SD, Mitnitski A, Gahbauer EA, Gill TM, Rockwood K (2018). A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr, 8:24.spa
dc.relation.referencesKulyk O, Op den Akkery R, Klaasseny R, van Gemert-Pijnen L (2014). Personalized virtual coaching for lifestyle support: Principles for design and evaluation. IJALSR, 6:300-09.spa
dc.relation.referencesMugueta-Aguinaga I, Garcia-Zapirain B (2017). Is Technology Present in Frailty? Technology a Back-up Tool for Dealing with Frailty in the Elderly: A Systematic Review. Aging Dis, 8:176-95.spa
dc.relation.referencesLiu L, Miguel Cruz A, Rios Rincon A, Buttar V, Ranson Q, Goertzen D (2015). What factors determine therapists' acceptance of new technologies for rehabilitation-a study using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Disabil Rehabil, 5:447-55.spa
dc.relation.referencesMichie S, van Stralen MM, West R (2011). The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci, 6:42spa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessspa
dc.subject.armarcTenologías de la información
dc.subject.armarcTelecomunicación
dc.subject.armarcAdultos mayores
dc.subject.proposalInformation and telecommunication technologiesspa
dc.subject.proposalFrailspa
dc.subject.proposalFragilityspa
dc.subject.proposalFrail older adultsspa
dc.subject.proposalTecnologías de la información y las telecomunicacionesspa
dc.subject.proposalFrágilesspa
dc.subject.proposalFragilidadspa
dc.subject.proposalAdultos mayores frágilesspa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1spa
dc.type.contentTextspa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlespa
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTspa


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • AA. Gibiome [38]
    Clasificación: A - Convocatoria 2018

Show simple item record