Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (7)

Search Parameters:
Authors = Wiebren Zijlstra

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
10 pages, 1054 KB  
Communication
Quantifying Circadian Aspects of Mobility-Related Behavior in Older Adults by Body-Worn Sensors—An “Active Period Analysis”
by Tim Fleiner, Rieke Trumpf, Anna Hollinger, Peter Haussermann and Wiebren Zijlstra
Sensors 2021, 21(6), 2121; https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062121 - 18 Mar 2021
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2783
Abstract
Disruptions of circadian motor behavior cause a significant burden for older adults as well as their caregivers and often lead to institutionalization. This cross-sectional study investigates the association between mobility-related behavior and subjectively rated circadian chronotypes in healthy older adults. The physical activity [...] Read more.
Disruptions of circadian motor behavior cause a significant burden for older adults as well as their caregivers and often lead to institutionalization. This cross-sectional study investigates the association between mobility-related behavior and subjectively rated circadian chronotypes in healthy older adults. The physical activity of 81 community-dwelling older adults was measured over seven consecutive days and nights using lower-back-worn hybrid motion sensors (MM+) and wrist-worn actigraphs (MW8). A 30-min and 120-min active period for the highest number of steps (MM+) and activity counts (MW8) was derived for each day, respectively. Subjective chronotypes were classified by the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire into 40 (50%) morning types, 35 (43%) intermediate and six (7%) evening types. Analysis revealed significantly earlier starts for the 30-min active period (steps) in the morning types compared to the intermediate types (p ≤ 0.01) and the evening types (p ≤ 0.01). The 120-min active period (steps) showed significantly earlier starts in the morning types compared to the intermediate types (p ≤ 0.01) and the evening types (p = 0.02). The starting times of active periods determined from wrist-activity counts (MW8) did not reveal differences between the three chronotypes (p = 0.36 for the 30-min and p = 0.12 for the 120-min active period). The timing of mobility-related activity, i.e., periods with the highest number of steps measured by hybrid motion sensors, is associated to subjectively rated chronotypes in healthy older adults. The analysis of individual active periods may provide an innovative approach for early detecting and individually tailoring the treatment of circadian disruptions in aging and geriatric healthcare. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 350 KB  
Article
Motility in Frail Older Adults: Operationalization of a New Framework and First Insights into Its Relationship with Physical Activity and Life-Space Mobility: An Exploratory Study
by Julia Seinsche, Wiebren Zijlstra and Eleftheria Giannouli
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(23), 8814; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238814 - 27 Nov 2020
Cited by 11 | Viewed by 3510
Abstract
In order to design effective interventions to prevent age-related mobility loss, it is important to identify influencing factors. The concept of “motility” by Kaufmann et al. subdivides such factors into three categories: “access”, “skills”, and “appropriation”. The aim of this study was to [...] Read more.
In order to design effective interventions to prevent age-related mobility loss, it is important to identify influencing factors. The concept of “motility” by Kaufmann et al. subdivides such factors into three categories: “access”, “skills”, and “appropriation”. The aim of this study was to assemble appropriate quantitative assessment tools for the assessment of these factors in frail older adults and to get first insights into their relative contribution for life-space and physical activity-related mobility. This is an exploratory cross-sectional study conducted with twenty-eight at least prefrail, retired participants aged 61–94. Life-space mobility was assessed using the “University of Alabama at Birmingham Life-space Assessment” (LSA) and physical activity using the “German Physical Activity Questionnaire” (PAQ50+). Factors from the category “appropriation”, followed by factors from the category “skills” showed the strongest associations with the LSA. Factors from the category “access” best explained the variance for PAQ50+. This study’s findings indicate the importance of accounting for and examining comprehensive models of mobility. The proposed assessment tools need to be explored in more depth in longitudinal studies with larger sample sizes in order to yield more conclusive results about the appropriateness of the motility concept for such purposes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Health Behavior, Chronic Disease and Health Promotion)
10 pages, 497 KB  
Article
Quantifying Habitual Physical Activity and Sedentariness in Older Adults—Different Outcomes of Two Simultaneously Body-Worn Motion Sensor Approaches and a Self-Estimation
by Rieke Trumpf, Wiebren Zijlstra, Peter Haussermann and Tim Fleiner
Sensors 2020, 20(7), 1877; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20071877 - 28 Mar 2020
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 3576
Abstract
Applicable and accurate assessment methods are required for a clinically relevant quantification of habitual physical activity (PA) levels and sedentariness in older adults. The aim of this study is to compare habitual PA and sedentariness, as assessed with (1) a wrist-worn actigraph, (2) [...] Read more.
Applicable and accurate assessment methods are required for a clinically relevant quantification of habitual physical activity (PA) levels and sedentariness in older adults. The aim of this study is to compare habitual PA and sedentariness, as assessed with (1) a wrist-worn actigraph, (2) a hybrid motion sensor attached to the lower back, and (3) a self-estimation based on a questionnaire. Over the course of one week, PA of 58 community-dwelling subjectively healthy older adults was recorded. The results indicate that actigraphy overestimates the PA levels in older adults, whereas sedentariness is underestimated when compared to the hybrid motion sensor approach. Significantly longer durations (hh:mm/day) for all PA intensities were assessed with the actigraph (light: 04:19; moderate to vigorous: 05:08) when compared to the durations (hh:mm/day) that were assessed with the hybrid motion sensor (light: 01:24; moderate to vigorous: 02:21) and the self-estimated durations (hh:mm/day) (light: 02:33; moderate to vigorous: 03:04). Actigraphy-assessed durations of sedentariness (14:32 hh:mm/day) were significantly shorter when compared to the durations assessed with the hybrid motion sensor (20:15 hh:mm/day). Self-estimated duration of light intensity was significantly shorter when compared to the results of the hybrid motion sensor. The results of the present study highlight the importance of an accurate quantification of habitual PA levels and sedentariness in older adults. The use of hybrid motion sensors can offer important insights into the PA levels and PA types (e.g., sitting, lying) and it can increase the knowledge about mobility-related PA and patterns of sedentariness, while actigraphy appears to be not recommendable for this purpose. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wearable Motion Sensors Applied in Older Adults)
Show Figures

Figure 1

30 pages, 6881 KB  
Article
Assessing Older Adults’ Daily Mobility: A Comparison of GPS-Derived and Self-Reported Mobility Indicators
by Michelle Pasquale Fillekes, Eun-Kyeong Kim, Rieke Trumpf, Wiebren Zijlstra, Eleftheria Giannouli and Robert Weibel
Sensors 2019, 19(20), 4551; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19204551 - 19 Oct 2019
Cited by 32 | Viewed by 8083
Abstract
Interest in global positioning system (GPS)-based mobility assessment for health and aging research is growing, and with it the demand for validated GPS-based mobility indicators. Time out of home (TOH) and number of activity locations (#ALs) are two indicators that are often derived [...] Read more.
Interest in global positioning system (GPS)-based mobility assessment for health and aging research is growing, and with it the demand for validated GPS-based mobility indicators. Time out of home (TOH) and number of activity locations (#ALs) are two indicators that are often derived from GPS data, despite lacking consensus regarding thresholds to be used to extract those as well as limited knowledge about their validity. Using 7 days of GPS and diary data of 35 older adults, we make the following three main contributions. First, we perform a sensitivity analysis to investigate how using spatial and temporal thresholds to compute TOH and #ALs affects the agreement between self-reported and GPS-based indicators. Second, we show how daily self-reported and GPS-derived mobility indicators are compared. Third, we explore whether the type and duration of self-reported activity events are related to the degree of correspondence between reported and GPS event. Highest indicator agreement was found for temporal interpolation (Tmax) of up to 5 h for both indicators, a radius (Dmax) to delineate home between 100 and 200 m for TOH, and for #ALs a spatial extent (Dmax) between 125 and 200 m, and temporal extent (Tmin) between 5 and 6 min to define an activity location. High agreement between self-reported and GPS-based indicators is obtained for TOH and moderate agreement for #ALs. While reported event type and duration impact on whether a reported event has a matching GPS event, indoor and outdoor events are detected at equal proportions. This work will help future studies to choose optimal threshold settings and will provide knowledge about the validity of mobility indicators. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wearable Motion Sensors Applied in Older Adults)
Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 903 KB  
Article
Inertial Sensor Based Analysis of Lie-to-Stand Transfers in Younger and Older Adults
by Lars Schwickert, Ronald Boos, Jochen Klenk, Alan Bourke, Clemens Becker and Wiebren Zijlstra
Sensors 2016, 16(8), 1277; https://doi.org/10.3390/s16081277 - 12 Aug 2016
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 5518
Abstract
Many older adults lack the capacity to stand up again after a fall. Therefore, to analyse falls it is relevant to understand recovery patterns, including successful and failed attempts to get up from the floor in general. This study analysed different kinematic features [...] Read more.
Many older adults lack the capacity to stand up again after a fall. Therefore, to analyse falls it is relevant to understand recovery patterns, including successful and failed attempts to get up from the floor in general. This study analysed different kinematic features of standing up from the floor. We used inertial sensors to describe the kinematics of lie-to-stand transfer patterns of younger and healthy older adults. Fourteen younger (20–50 years of age, 50% men) and 10 healthy older community dwellers (≥60 years; 50% men) conducted four lie-to-stand transfers from different initial lying postures. The analysed temporal, kinematic, and elliptic fitting complexity measures of transfer performance were significantly different between younger and older subjects (i.e., transfer duration, angular velocity (RMS), maximum vertical acceleration, maximum vertical velocity, smoothness, fluency, ellipse width, angle between ellipses). These results show the feasibility and potential of analysing kinematic features to describe the lie-to-stand transfer performance, to help design interventions and detection approaches to prevent long lies after falls. It is possible to describe age-related differences in lie-to-stand transfer performance using inertial sensors. The kinematic analysis remains to be tested on patterns after real-world falls. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Physical Sensors)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

13 pages, 748 KB  
Article
Test-Retest Reliability of a Pendant-Worn Sensor Device in Measuring Chair Rise Performance in Older Persons
by Wei Zhang, G. Ruben H. Regterschot, Hana Schaabova, Heribert Baldus and Wiebren Zijlstra
Sensors 2014, 14(5), 8705-8717; https://doi.org/10.3390/s140508705 - 16 May 2014
Cited by 26 | Viewed by 9113
Abstract
Chair rise performance is incorporated in clinical assessments to indicate fall risk status in older persons. This study investigated the test-retest reliability of a pendant-sensor-based assessment of chair rise performance. Forty-one older persons (28 females, 13 males, age: 72–94) were assessed in two [...] Read more.
Chair rise performance is incorporated in clinical assessments to indicate fall risk status in older persons. This study investigated the test-retest reliability of a pendant-sensor-based assessment of chair rise performance. Forty-one older persons (28 females, 13 males, age: 72–94) were assessed in two sessions with 3 to 8 days in between. Repeated chair rise transfers were measured after different instructions. Relative and absolute test-retest reliability of chair rise measurements in individual tests and average over all tests were evaluated by means of intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of measurement (SEM) as a percentage of the measurement mean. Systematic bias between the measurements in test and retest was examined with paired t-tests. Heteroscedasticity of the measurements was visually checked with Bland-Altman plots. In the different test conditions, the ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.93, and the SEM% ranged between 5.7% and 21.2%. The relative and absolute reliability of the average over all tests were ICC = 0.86 and SEM% = 9.5% for transfer duration, ICC = 0.93 and SEM% = 9.2% for maximum vertical acceleration, and ICC = 0.89 and SEM% = 10.0% for peak power. The results over all tests indicated that a fall risk assessment application based on pendant-worn-sensor measured chair rise performance in daily life might be feasible. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Physical Sensors)
Show Figures

11 pages, 232 KB  
Article
Recommendations for Standardizing Validation Procedures Assessing Physical Activity of Older Persons by Monitoring Body Postures and Movements
by Ulrich Lindemann, Wiebren Zijlstra, Kamiar Aminian, Sebastien F.M. Chastin, Eling D. De Bruin, Jorunn L. Helbostad and Johannes B.J. Bussmann
Sensors 2014, 14(1), 1267-1277; https://doi.org/10.3390/s140101267 - 10 Jan 2014
Cited by 49 | Viewed by 12557
Abstract
Physical activity is an important determinant of health and well-being in older persons and contributes to their social participation and quality of life. Hence, assessment tools are needed to study this physical activity in free-living conditions. Wearable motion sensing technology is used to [...] Read more.
Physical activity is an important determinant of health and well-being in older persons and contributes to their social participation and quality of life. Hence, assessment tools are needed to study this physical activity in free-living conditions. Wearable motion sensing technology is used to assess physical activity. However, there is a lack of harmonisation of validation protocols and applied statistics, which make it hard to compare available and future studies. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to formulate recommendations for assessing the validity of sensor-based activity monitoring in older persons with focus on the measurement of body postures and movements. Validation studies of body-worn devices providing parameters on body postures and movements were identified and summarized and an extensive inter-active process between authors resulted in recommendations about: information on the assessed persons, the technical system, and the analysis of relevant parameters of physical activity, based on a standardized and semi-structured protocol. The recommended protocols can be regarded as a first attempt to standardize validity studies in the area of monitoring physical activity. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wearable Gait Sensors)
Show Figures

Back to TopTop