skip to main content
10.1145/3229434.3229473acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Inclusively designing IDA: effectively communicating falls risk to stakeholders

Published:03 September 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Although gait/balance analysis methods have proven effective for assessing falls risk (FR), they are mostly confined to the laboratory and rely on expensive specialist equipment. Recent sensor technologies have made it possible to capture FR data accurately; however, no exploration has been done on how to effectively communicate these data to seniors in both healthcare and free-living settings. We describe IDA (Insole Device for Assessment of Falls Risk), comprising a relatively inexpensive insole and prototype application that provides feedback to stakeholders. To explore what level of FR data should best be communicated to different stakeholders, we conducted workshops with 26 seniors and interviewed 7 healthcare workers in the UK. We highlight stakeholder preferences on viewing FR data to foster greater understanding of outcomes and enhance communication between stakeholders. Finally, we identify opportunities for design on enhancing understanding of gait/balance outcomes; these have potential applications in other areas of physical rehabilitation.

References

  1. Mobolaji Ayoade and Lynne Baillie. 2014. A Novel Knee Rehabilitation System for the Home. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI `14). ACM, 2521--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Lynne Baillie. 2002. The Home Workshop: A method for investigating the home (Doctoral dissertation, Edinburgh Napier University)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Emma Barry, Rose Galvin, Claire Keogh, F. Horgan and T. Fahey. 2014. Is the Timed Up and Go test a useful predictor of risk of falls in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta- analysis. BMC Geriatr. 14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Benedikt Braun, Nils Veith, Rebecca Hell, Stefan Döbele, Michael Roland et al. 2015. Validation and reliability testing of a new, fully integrated gait analysis insole. J. Foot Ankle Res. 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Archibald J. Campbell. 1999. Falls Prevention Over 2 Years: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Women 80 Years and Older. Age and Ageing 28, pp. 513--18Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Marcelo P. de Castro, Marco Meucci, Denise P. Soares, Pedro Fonseca, Márcio Borgonovo-Santos et al. 2014. Accuracy and Repeatability of the Gait Analysis by the WalkinSense System. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Ross A. Clark, Stephanie Vernon, Benjamin F. Mentiplay, Kimberly J. Miller, Jennifer L. McGinley et al. 2015. Instrumenting gait assessment using the Kinect in people living with stroke: reliability and association with balance tests. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 12, 15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. J. C. Close, and Stephen R. Lord. 2011. Fall assessment in older people. BMJ 343, d5153--d5153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. GAITRite, CIR Systems Inc. http://www.gaitrite.com/GAITRite.htm. Accessed: 15<sup>th</sup> Sept 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Alejandro Galán-Mercant, and Antonio I. Cuesta-Vargas. 2014. Mobile Romberg test assessment (mRomberg). BMC Res. Notes 7, 640.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Barney G. Glaser, Anselm L. Strauss, and Elizabeth Strutzel. 1968. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing research, 17(4), p.364.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Richard Harte, Liam Glynn, Alejandro Rodríguez-Molinero, Paul MA Baker, Thomas Scharf et al. 2017. A Human-Centered Design Methodology to Enhance the Usability, Human Factors, and User Experience of Connected Health Systems: A Three-Phase Methodology. JMIR Hum. Factors 4, e8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jeffrey M. Hausdorff, Dean A. Rios, and Helen K. Edelberg. 2001. Gait variability and fall risk in community-living older adults: a 1-year prospective study. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 82, 1050--1056.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. J. Howcroft, J. Kofman, and E. D. Lemaire. 2013. Review of fall risk assessment in geriatric populations using inertial sensors. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 10, 91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A. Khasnis and R. M. Gokula. 2003. Romberg's test. J. Postgrad. Med., 49:169Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. David Loudon, Bruce Carse and Alastair Macdonald. 2011. Investigating the Use of Visualizations of Biomechanics in Physical Rehabilitation, CENTERIS 2011: ENTERprise Information Systems, pp. 30--39Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Vipul Lugade, Victor Lin, and Li-Shan Chou. 2011. Center of mass and base of support interaction during gait. Gait Posture 33, 406--411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Hannah R. Marston, Ashley Woodbury, Yves J. Gschwind, Michael Kroll, Denis Fink, Sabine Eichberg, Karl Kreiner et al. 2015. The design of a purpose-built exergame for fall prediction and prevention for older people. Eur. Rev. Aging Phys. Act. 12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Paramita Mitra, Tahseen Chaudhury and S. A. Ali. 2012. Fragility fractures in the elderly: Evolving approaches in the NHS. Trauma 14, 39--46Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Yaejin Moon, Douglas A. Wajda, Robert W. Motl, and Jacob J. Sosnoff. 2015. Stride-Time Variability and Fall Risk in Persons with Multiple Sclerosis. Mult. Scler. Int. 2015, 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. David Oliver. 2008. Falls risk-prediction tools for hospital inpatients. Time to put them to bed? Age Ageing 37, 248--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Martin J-D. Otis, Johannes C. Ayena, et al. 2016. Use of an Enactive Insole for Reducing the Risk of Falling on Different Types of Soil Using Vibrotactile Cueing for the Elderly. PLOS ONE 11, e0162107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Karen L. Perell, Audrey Nelson, Ronald L. Goldman, Stephen L. Luther, Nicole Prieto-Lewis, and Laurence Z. Rubenstein. 2001. Fall Risk Assessment Measures: An Analytic Review. J. Gerontol. A. Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 56, M761--M766.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Diane Podsiadlo, and Sandra Richardson. 1991. The timed "Up & Go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J.Am.Geriatr.Soc.39, 142--148Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Marilyn Rantz, Marjorie Skubic, Carmen Abbott, Colleen Galambos, Mihail Popescu et al. 2015. Automated In-Home Fall Risk Assessment and Detection Sensor System for Elders. The Gerontologist 55, S78--S87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Samuel Schülein, Jens Barth, Alexander Rampp, Roland Rupprecht, Björn M. Eskofier et al. 2017. Instrumented gait analysis: a measure of gait improvement by a wheeled walker in hospitalized geriatric patients. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Christina Seimetz, Danica Tan, Riemann Katayama, and T. Lockhart. 2012. A comparison between methods of measuring postrual stability: force plates versus accelerometers. Biomed. Sci. Instrum. 48, 386--392Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Pete B. Shull, Wisit Jirattigalachote, Michael A. Hunt, Mark R. Cutkosky and Scott L. Delp. 2014. Quantified self and human movement: A review on the clinical impact of wearable sensing and feedback for gait analysis and intervention. Gait Posture 40, 11--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Dawn Skelton and Chris Todd. 2004. What are the main risk factors for falls amongst older people and what are the most effective interventions to prevent these falls? How should interventions to prevent falls be implemented. World Health OrganizationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Weijun Tao, Tao Liu, Rencheng Zheng and Hutian Feng. 2012. Gait Analysis Using Wearable Sensors. Sensors 12, 2255--2283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Anne Tiedemann, Hiroyuki Shimada, Catherine Sherrington, Susan Murray, and Stephen Lord. 2008. The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people. Age Ageing 37, 430--435.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Mary E. Tinetti, Mark Speechley, and Sandra F. Ginter. 1988. Risk Factors for Falls among Elderly Persons Living in the Community. N. Engl. J. Med. 319, 1701--1707.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Stephen Uzor and Lynne Baillie. 2014. Investigating the Long-Term Use of Exergames in the Home with Elderly Fallers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI `14). ACM, New York, NY, 2813--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Vicon Motion Systems (https://www.vicon.com/). Accessed: 15<sup>th</sup> Sept 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    MobileHCI '18: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
    September 2018
    552 pages
    ISBN:9781450358989
    DOI:10.1145/3229434

    Copyright © 2018 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 3 September 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader