Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

ICT technologies as new promising tools for the managing of frailty: a systematic review

  • Review
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Frailty is a major health issue as it encompasses functional decline, physical dependence, and increased mortality risk. Recent studies explored Information and Communication Technology (ICT) interventions as alternatives to manage frailty in older persons. The aim of the present systematic review was to synthesize current evidence on ICT application within the complex models of frailty care in older people.

Methods

Data sources included PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Web of Science, considering eligible those reviews on ICT application in samples of older persons formally assessed as frail. Records were screened by two independent researchers, who extracted data and appraised methodological quality of reviews and studies.

Results

Among the 764 retrieved papers, two systematic reviews were included. Most of the studies analyzed defined frailty considering only few components of the phenotype and used ICT to stratify different levels of frailty or to support traditional screening strategies. Assessment of frailty was the context in which ICT has been mostly tested as compared to intervention. Cost effectiveness evaluations of the ICT technologies were not reported.

Conclusions

The research investigating the use of ICT in the context of frailty is still at the very beginning. Few studies strictly focused on the assessment of frailty, while intervention on frailty using ICT was rarely reported. The lack of a proper characterization of the frail condition along with the methodological limitations prevented the investigation of ICT within complex care models. Future studies are needed to effectively integrate ICT in the care of frailty in orders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yang Z, Norton EC, Stearns SC (2003) Longevity and health care expenditures: the real reasons older people spend more. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.1.S2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Morley JE, Vellas B, Abellan van Kan G et al (2013) Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2013.03.022

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Clegg A, Young J, Iliff ES et al (2013) Erratum: frailty in elderly people. Lancet 381:752–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62138-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA et al (2012) Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04054.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vollenbroek-Hutten M, Jansen-Kosterink S, Tabak M et al (2017) Possibilities of ICT-supported services in the clinical management of older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0711-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Carter M, Grover V (2015) Me, my self, and I(T): conceptualizing information technology identity and its implications. MIS Q Manag Inf Syst. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2015/39.4.9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beard JR, Bloom DE (2015) Towards a comprehensive public health response to population ageing. Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61461-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Keränen NS, Kangas M, Immonen M et al (2017) Use of information and communication technologies among older people with and without frailty: a population-based survey. J Med Internet Res. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5507

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M et al (2016) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Rev Esp Nutr Humana y Diet. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z et al (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA et al (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sharif MO, Janjua-Sharif FN, Ali H, Ahmed F (2013) Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly. Oral Health Dent Manag 12:9–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dasenbrock L, Heinks A, Schwenk M et al (2016) Technology-based measurements for screening, monitoring and preventing frailty. Z Gerontol Geriatr. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1129-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I et al (2016) Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.04.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM et al (2011) Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-15

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Galán-Mercant A, Cuesta-Vargas AI (2014) Mobile Romberg test assessment (mRomberg). BMC Res Notes. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-640

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Galán-Mercant A, Cuesta-Vargas AI (2014) Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks. BMC Res Notes. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Martínez-Ramírez A, Lecumberri P, Gómez M et al (2011) Frailty assessment based on wavelet analysis during quiet standing balance test. J Biomech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.06.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Martínez-Ramírez A, Martinikorena I, Gómez M et al (2015) Frailty assessment based on trunk kinematic parameters during walking. J Neuroeng Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0040-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Fontecha J, Hervás R, Bravo J et al (2013) A mobile and ubiquitous approach for supporting frailty assessment in elderly people. J Med Internet Res. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2529

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Millor N, Lecumberri P, Gómez M et al (2013) An evaluation of the 30-s chair stand test in older adults: frailty detection based on kinematic parameters from a single inertial unit. J Neuroeng Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-10-86

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Greene BR, Doheny EP, Kenny RA et al (2014) Classification of frailty and falls history using a combination of sensor-based mobility assessments. Physiol Meas. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/35/10/2053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Soaz C, Diepold K (2016) Step detection and parameterization for gait assessment using a single waist-worn accelerometer. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2015.2480296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ganea R, Paraschiv-Ionescu A, Büla C et al (2011) Multi-parametric evaluation of sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions in elderly people. Med Eng Phys. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.04.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mohler MJ, Wendel CS, Taylor-Piliae RE et al (2016) Motor performance and physical activity as predictors of prospective falls in community-dwelling older adults by frailty level: application of wearable technology. Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000445889

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Schwenk M, Mohler J, Wendel C 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. https://doi.org/10.1159/000369095

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Thiede R, Toosizadeh N, Mills JL et al (2016) Gait and balance assessments as early indicators of frailty in patients with known peripheral artery disease. Clin Biomech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen S, Honda T, Chen T et al (2015) Screening for frailty phenotype with objectively-measured physical activity in a west Japanese suburban community: evidence from the Sasaguri Genkimon Study. BMC Geriatr. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0037-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Chang YC, Lin CC, Lin PH et al (2013) EFurniture for home-based frailty detection using artificial neural networks and wireless sensors. Med Eng Phys. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.09.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Theou O, Jakobi JM, Vandervoort AA et al (2012) A comparison of physical activity (PA) assessment tools across levels of frailty. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2011.12.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hollewand AM, Spijkerman AG, Bilo HJG et al (2016) Validity of an accelerometer-based activity monitor system for measuring physical activity in frail older adults. J Aging Phys Act. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2014-0290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J et al (2001) Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K (2001) Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. ScientificWorldJournal. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2001.58

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Espinoza SE, Fried LP (2007) CME article: risk factors for frailty in the older adult. Clin Geriatr 15:37

    Google Scholar 

  37. Peters LL, Boter H, Buskens E et al (2012) Measurement properties of the groningen frailty indicator in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people. J Am Med Dir Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim S, Kim M, Kim N et al (2012) Quantification and validity of modified Romberg tests using three-axis accelerometers. Commun Comput Inf Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35251-5_35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Weiss A, Herman T, Plotnik M et al (2011) An instrumented timed up and go: the added value of an accelerometer for identifying fall risk in idiopathic fallers. Physiol Meas. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/32/12/009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Berg KO, Maki BE, Williams JI et al (1992) Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.5555/uri:pii:000399939290174U

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Salarian A, Zampieri C, Horak FB, et al (2009) Analyzing 180° turns using an inertial system reveals early signs of progression of Parkinson’s disease. Proceedings of 31st Annual International Conference IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. Eng. Futur. Biomed. EMBC 2009. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5333970

  42. Whitney SL, Marchetti GF, Schade A, Wrisley DM (2004) The sensitivity and specificity of the Timed “Up & Go” and the Dynamic Gait Index for self-reported falls in persons with vestibular disorders. J Vestib Res 14:397–409

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mathias S, Nayak USL, Isaacs B (1986) Balance in elderly patients: the “get-up and go” test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil

  44. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S (1991) The timed ”Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 39:142–148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Whitney SL, Wrisley DM, Marchetti GF, Gee MA, Redfern MS, Furman JM (2005) Clinical measurement of sit-to-stand performance in people with balance disorders: validity of data for the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test. Phys Ther 85:1034–1045. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/85.10.1034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Doheny EP, Walsh C, Foran T et al (2013) Falls classification using tri-axial accelerometers during the five-times-sit-to-stand test. Gait Posture. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Upatising B, Hanson GJ, Kim YL et al (2013) Effects of home telemonitoring on transitions between frailty states and death for older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Gen Med. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S40576

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Cesari M, Prince M, Thiyagarajan JA et al (2016) Frailty: an emerging public health priority. J Am Med Dir Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2015.12.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S (2012) Methodologies for assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Melorose J, Perroy R, Careas S (2015) World population prospects: the 2015 revision, key findings and advance tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

  51. Dent E, Perez-Zepeda M (2015) Comparison of five indices for prediction of adverse outcomes in hospitalised Mexican older adults: a cohort study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2014.09.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Reeder B, Meyer E, Lazar A et al (2013) Framing the evidence for health smart homes and home-based consumer health technologies as a public health intervention for independent aging: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.03.007

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Goodwin N (2018) Tomorrow’s world: Is digital health the disruptive innovation that will drive the adoption of integrated care systems? Int J Integr Care. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.4638

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Barbabella F, Melchiorre MG, Quattrini S, Papa R, Lamura G, Richardson E, van Ginneken E (2017) How can eHealth improve care for people with multimorbidity in Europe? World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wagner EH (1999) Care of older people with chronic illness. New ways to care older people build. Syst. Based Evid

  56. Barr VJ, Marin-Link B, Underhill L, Dotts A, Ravensdale D, Salivaras S (2003) The expanded chronic care model. Healthc Q. https://doi.org/10.12927

  57. Segal JB, Chang HY, Du Y, Walston JD, Carlson MC, Varadhan R (2017) Development of a claims-based frailty indicator anchored to a well-established frailty phenotype. Med Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000729

Download references

Funding

This work was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health IRCCS Network on Aging “Research roadmap on aging and age-related diseases” RRC-2018-2365820.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed significantly to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by AG and PDT. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AG and PDT and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript, No other contributors assisted the authors in this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessia Gallucci.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 246 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOC 74 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gallucci, A., Trimarchi, P.D., Abbate, C. et al. ICT technologies as new promising tools for the managing of frailty: a systematic review. Aging Clin Exp Res 33, 1453–1464 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01626-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01626-9

Keywords

Navigation