Ginna Baik, CDW’s senior care and aging technology strategist, discusses what new research is finding and how wearables measure up to the opportunities they offer.

What is the state of the science regarding the health effects of physical activity and sedentary behavior as established by self-report and device measurements for each of the 24-hour activity cycle (HAC) domains?

In evaluating what we know, the biggest realization is that we’re in a process of redefining how we look at physical health guidelines. In the past and into the present day, physical guidelines for optimal health has put an emphasis on getting 30 minutes a day of exercise. What new research studies of the human body and the use of wearable tracking devices are telling us is that we need to look at a broader picture. Thirty minutes a day of exercise isn’t all people need to be healthy. In addition to the exercise component of health, there are three emerging components: sedentary behavior, sleep and light activity. So, how does how much sitting someone does, how much sleep people get and how many light activities, such as vacuuming, that get done daily factor into people’s overall health?

What are some innovations and issues regarding the accurate and reliable measurement of the 24-HAC domains using wearable devices?

In terms of innovations, I think that every iteration of wearable that hits the market improves on what came before. In terms of issues, while each wearable uses similar foundational algorithms, there are variants from device to device, even if those devices essentially do the same thing, such as track heart rate. And we have to keep in mind that while wearables give us terrific data, they may not give us the most accurate data. For example, devices that track heart rate are usually on the arm. However, the most accurate way to track heart rate is with a chest strap. So you get a ballpark heart rate with an arm-based wearable, but not necessarily the same level of accuracy as you would if you were using a chest strap. That said, wearables do give you a baseline – what’s normal for you – so if you suddenly get an at-rest heart rate that’s much higher than you normally get, even if it’s not 100 percent accurate, it’s still valuable information you can act on if you need to.

What would you say is the status of the collection, storage, management and analysis of data in each 24-HAC domain?

It is difficult to offer an assessment of data collection, storage and analysis of wearables because each wearable manufacturer has its own application. Some automatically synch data, for instance, while others require wearers to manually sync. In terms of using the data from wearables for accurate data analysis, the problem comes in situations of manual synching. People forget to synch their data and that data might be automatically deleted after a certain amount of time, so the data could be lost. If you’re not using your wearable to analyze the data it collects then it doesn’t matter to you if your data synchs or you lose data, but if you’re using it to learn insights about your health or level of activity, or if the data is being collected on a population basis, such as in a hospital or senior living setting, the loss of that data is critical. In the case of monitoring population data, it makes sense for the organization to use a HIPAA-compliant analytics dashboard to aggregate the data.

How do you evaluate research priorities to advance objective assessment in each of the 24-HAC domains?

We look at the new science that is emerging. There is still a lot of emphasis, as I mentioned earlier, on needing 30 minutes of exercise a day, but some new thinking is developing especially around the importance of sleep and the impacts of light activity and sedentary behavior. I think we’re going to start seeing a lot more research on these domains.

Can you discuss some of the outcomes and lessons learned from the research and implications these findings have for population health/senior care?

From the perspective of population health and senior care, what we’ve learned from our research is that wearable trackers are not designed for older adults. The senior population in this country gets larger by the day, but these wearable devices are created for people age 45 and younger. People older than 65 often have a hard time seeing what’s on wearable devices. Even in terms of tracking steps, the algorithms are set up for the pace of someone younger so the devices are not suited for older people with mobility issues who often walk at a slower pace and/or with a walker. If wearables took into consideration the differences in activity level and health of the older population, they could have a big impact on population health.

Visit us at booth #2761