Jan J Duin, Joosje C Baltussen, Gali Albalak, Eléonore F van Dam van Isselt, Johanneke E A Portielje, Simon P Mooijaart, Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Frederiek van den Bos
{"title":"可穿戴技术在老年癌症患者研究中的应用:系统综述。","authors":"Jan J Duin, Joosje C Baltussen, Gali Albalak, Eléonore F van Dam van Isselt, Johanneke E A Portielje, Simon P Mooijaart, Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Frederiek van den Bos","doi":"10.1093/oncolo/oyae319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the increasing integration of wearable technology in oncology, its application in the care of older adults, representing most patients with cancer, is poorly defined.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to summarize the current use of wearables in studies in older adults with cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on May 1, 2024. Studies involving wearable devices and patients aged ≥60 years diagnosed with cancer were included. Outcomes reported were study characteristics, wearable outcomes, feasibility and adherence. The mixed method appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 publications were included, comprising 1298 older patients. Of these, 12 were pilot/feasibility studies, 12 were observational studies, 6 were randomized controlled trials, and 1 was a cross-sectional study. Most studies used wearable data to measure recovery (19 studies, 61%). Physical activity was the most studied wearable outcome (27 studies, 87%). Adherence to the wearable device was documented in 11 of the 31 studies (35%), with adherence ranging from 74% to 100%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our systematic review found wearables were mostly used to measure physical activity, with the most common primary aim of measuring recovery. Most studies reported high adherence, although definitions of adherence were diverse. Our results highlight the need for more and larger studies on wearable technology in older cancer patients, the use of standardized reporting frameworks, and increased participation in research in low- and middle-income countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":54686,"journal":{"name":"Oncologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The use of wearable technology in studies in older adults with cancer: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Jan J Duin, Joosje C Baltussen, Gali Albalak, Eléonore F van Dam van Isselt, Johanneke E A Portielje, Simon P Mooijaart, Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Frederiek van den Bos\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oncolo/oyae319\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the increasing integration of wearable technology in oncology, its application in the care of older adults, representing most patients with cancer, is poorly defined.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to summarize the current use of wearables in studies in older adults with cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on May 1, 2024. Studies involving wearable devices and patients aged ≥60 years diagnosed with cancer were included. Outcomes reported were study characteristics, wearable outcomes, feasibility and adherence. The mixed method appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 publications were included, comprising 1298 older patients. Of these, 12 were pilot/feasibility studies, 12 were observational studies, 6 were randomized controlled trials, and 1 was a cross-sectional study. Most studies used wearable data to measure recovery (19 studies, 61%). Physical activity was the most studied wearable outcome (27 studies, 87%). Adherence to the wearable device was documented in 11 of the 31 studies (35%), with adherence ranging from 74% to 100%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our systematic review found wearables were mostly used to measure physical activity, with the most common primary aim of measuring recovery. Most studies reported high adherence, although definitions of adherence were diverse. Our results highlight the need for more and larger studies on wearable technology in older cancer patients, the use of standardized reporting frameworks, and increased participation in research in low- and middle-income countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oncologist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oncologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae319\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae319","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The use of wearable technology in studies in older adults with cancer: a systematic review.
Background: Despite the increasing integration of wearable technology in oncology, its application in the care of older adults, representing most patients with cancer, is poorly defined.
Objective: This systematic review aimed to summarize the current use of wearables in studies in older adults with cancer.
Methods: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on May 1, 2024. Studies involving wearable devices and patients aged ≥60 years diagnosed with cancer were included. Outcomes reported were study characteristics, wearable outcomes, feasibility and adherence. The mixed method appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of included studies.
Results: A total of 31 publications were included, comprising 1298 older patients. Of these, 12 were pilot/feasibility studies, 12 were observational studies, 6 were randomized controlled trials, and 1 was a cross-sectional study. Most studies used wearable data to measure recovery (19 studies, 61%). Physical activity was the most studied wearable outcome (27 studies, 87%). Adherence to the wearable device was documented in 11 of the 31 studies (35%), with adherence ranging from 74% to 100%.
Conclusions: Our systematic review found wearables were mostly used to measure physical activity, with the most common primary aim of measuring recovery. Most studies reported high adherence, although definitions of adherence were diverse. Our results highlight the need for more and larger studies on wearable technology in older cancer patients, the use of standardized reporting frameworks, and increased participation in research in low- and middle-income countries.
期刊介绍:
The Oncologist® is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into the best multidimensional care for cancer patients. Thus, The Oncologist is committed to helping physicians excel in this ever-expanding environment through the publication of timely reviews, original studies, and commentaries on important developments. We believe that the practice of oncology requires both an understanding of a range of disciplines encompassing basic science related to cancer, translational research, and clinical practice, but also the socioeconomic and psychosocial factors that determine access to care and quality of life and function following cancer treatment.