Contactless and longitudinal monitoring of nocturnal sleep and daytime naps in older men and women: a digital health technology evaluation study.
Contactless and longitudinal monitoring of nocturnal sleep and daytime naps in older men and women: a digital health technology evaluation study.
复制标题
作者：
比较两种非接触式睡眠技术（CST）与体动记录仪在社区居住老年人中的24小时睡眠评估能力。我们在家中收集了35名老年人（年龄：65-83岁）7-14天的数据，其中一些患有疾病，使用Withings睡眠分析仪（WSA，n = 29），Emfit QS（Emfit，n = 17），标准活动记录仪（Actiwatch Spectrum [AWS，n = 34]）和睡眠日记（n = 35）。我们比较了CST和无睡眠日记信息的体动仪（AWS-A）与睡眠日记辅助体动仪（AWS）估计的夜间和白天睡眠测量值|SD）。与睡眠日记相比，两种CST都准确地确定了夜间睡眠的时间（组内相关性[ICC]：上床，起床，床上时间>0.75），而AWS-A的准确性要低得多。与AWS相比|SD，CST高估了夜间总睡眠时间（WSA：+92.71 ± 81.16分钟; Emfit：+101.47 ± 75.95分钟），AWS-A也是如此（+46.95 ± 67.26分钟）。CST高估了睡眠效率（WSA：+9.19% ± 14.26%; Emfit：+9.41% ± 11.05%），而AWS-A估计值（-2.38% ± 10.06%）是准确的。大约65%（n = 23）的参与者报告白天在床上或其他地方小睡。约90%的床上午睡时间准确确定WSA，而Emfit的准确性较差。所有三种设备估计的24小时睡眠时间与睡眠日记相比误差为10%。CST准确地捕捉床上夜间睡眠时间的定时，而不需要睡眠日记信息。然而，在这些CST可以在现场设置中充分利用之前，需要改进评估参数，如总睡眠时间，睡眠效率和午睡。
To compare the 24-hour sleep assessment capabilities of two contactless sleep technologies (CSTs) to actigraphy in community-dwelling older adults. We collected 7–14 days of data at home from 35 older adults (age: 65–83), some with medical conditions, using Withings Sleep Analyser (WSA, n = 29), Emfit QS (Emfit, n = 17), a standard actigraphy device (Actiwatch Spectrum [AWS, n = 34]), and a sleep diary (n = 35). We compared nocturnal and daytime sleep measures estimated by the CSTs and actigraphy without sleep diary information (AWS-A) against sleep-diary-assisted actigraphy (AWS|SD). Compared to sleep diary, both CSTs accurately determined the timing of nocturnal sleep (intraclass correlation [ICC]: going to bed, getting out of bed, time in bed >0.75), whereas the accuracy of AWS-A was much lower. Compared to AWS|SD, the CSTs overestimated nocturnal total sleep time (WSA: +92.71 ± 81.16 minutes; Emfit: +101.47 ± 75.95 minutes) as did AWS-A (+46.95 ± 67.26 minutes). The CSTs overestimated sleep efficiency (WSA: +9.19% ± 14.26%; Emfit: +9.41% ± 11.05%), whereas AWS-A estimate (−2.38% ± 10.06%) was accurate. About 65% (n = 23) of participants reported daytime naps either in bed or elsewhere. About 90% in-bed nap periods were accurately determined by WSA while Emfit was less accurate. All three devices estimated 24-hour sleep duration with an error of ≈10% compared to the sleep diary. CSTs accurately capture the timing of in-bed nocturnal sleep periods without the need for sleep diary information. However, improvements are needed in assessing parameters such as total sleep time, sleep efficiency, and naps before these CSTs can be fully utilized in field settings.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5
作者：
Kennedy MR;Huxtable R;Birchley G;Ives J;Craddock I
通讯作者：
Craddock I
影响因子：
5.6
作者：
Chinoy ED;Cuellar JA;Huwa KE;Jameson JT;Watson CH;Bessman SC;Hirsch DA;Cooper AD;Drummond SPA;Markwald RR
通讯作者：
Markwald RR
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Kholghi, Mahnoosh;Szollosi, Irene;Zhang, Qing
通讯作者：
Zhang, Qing
影响因子：
5
作者：
Schütz N;Saner H;Botros A;Pais B;Santschi V;Buluschek P;Gatica-Perez D;Urwyler P;Müri RM;Nef T
通讯作者：
Nef T
影响因子：
4
作者：
Owusu JT;Wennberg AMV;Holingue CB;Tzuang M;Abeson KD;Spira AP
通讯作者：
Spira AP