PreprintCited by 18Context-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsTechnology Use by Older AdultsAging, Health, and Disability

Recognition of Basic Activities of Daily Living Using Wearable Devices for Older Adults: Scoping Review (Preprint)

Open access
Ray, Samantha J, Cherian, Josh, Liberty, Amanda Mae, Hammond, Tracy Anne, Shireman, Paula K·2024·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Preprint — published as 10.2196/67373 · Paper page

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tracking the performance of activities of daily living (ADLs) using ADL recognition has the potential to facilitate aging-in-place strategies, allowing older adults to live in their homes longer and enabling their families and caregivers to monitor changes in health status. However, the ADL recognition literature historically has evaluated systems in controlled settings with data from younger populations, creating the question of whether these systems will work in real-world conditions for older populations. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review seeks to establish the state-of-the-art for recognizing basic ADLs using wearable sensors. This primary goal will identify literature gaps and research needed to make ADL tracking viable for aging-in-place solutions. In addition, this paper will quantify how many publications include older adults. This secondary goal assesses how often studies evaluate their system with older adult participants, enhancing the trustworthiness of the approach. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We identify studies focused on basic ADL recognition using wearable sensors within the PubMed, Association of Computing Machinery Digital Library (ACM DL), and Google Scholar databases using papers published in the last 5 calendar years (2019-2024) to identify current trends given the rapid changes in wearable technology devices. Publications must include at least one of the basic ADLs (ie, bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, continence, and feeding) and include some sort of wearable sensor or device. Studies focusing on instrumental ADLs, general physical activity tracking, fall detection, or only using environmental devices are excluded. Studies that include older adults in the design or evaluation of their ADL recognition system are highlighted. RESULTS: The database search identified 695 papers; 164 papers passed title screening. A total of 58 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria; only 8 studies included older adults despite most studies identifying this population as a focus for their research. Most studies focused on eating (n=27), hygiene (n=24), drinking (n=20), or transitions (n=13). Few works included toileting (n=3), dressing (n=2), or bathing (n=1) activities. Of the 8 studies that included older adults, 5 focused on recognition performance while 3 focused on user experience and system acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Basic ADLs are unevenly covered in the literature; more research is needed for recognizing bathing, dressing, and toileting activities. Despite all studies stating the importance of tracking ADLs in older adults, only 14% (8/58) of the included works involve older adult participants. A commonality between these outcomes is difficulty collecting or obtaining adequate training data for ADL recognition systems. Many works are predominantly concerned with proving system feasibility and do not assess usability or real-world deployment. For these systems to move from academic experiments to actual systems with clinical utility, ADL recognition systems must consider the design requirements of being part of remote health monitoring systems. CLINICALTRIAL:

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/preprints.67373

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ray, S. J., Cherian, J., Liberty, A. M., Hammond, T. A., & Shireman, P. K.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Wake Forest University (US)
Corresponding author
Ray, Samantha J
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2024-10-09
Volume
27
Pages
e67373-e67373
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410391346
Cited by
18
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 2
FWCI
1.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1952236)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
activities of daily living, basic activities of daily living, wearable sensors, older adults, aging in place, activity recognition, bathing, dressing, toileting, eating, alcohol consumption, transition, caregiver monitoring, user experience, system acceptability, real-world evaluation, research gaps, assistive technology for older adults, home care, privacy and data security
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Humans, Independent Living

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review