Using Digital Technology to Quantify Habitual Physical Activity in Community Dwellers With Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: Participating in habitual physical activity (HPA) can support people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to maintain functional independence. Digital technology can continuously measure HPA objectively, capturing nuanced measures relating to its volume, intensity, pattern, and variability. Objective: To understand HPA participation in people with cognitive impairment, this systematic review aims to (1) identify digital methods and protocols; (2) identify metrics used to assess HPA; (3) describe differences in HPA between people with dementia, MCI, and controls; and (4) make recommendations for measuring and reporting HPA in people with cognitive impairment. Methods: Key search terms were input into 6 databases: Scopus, Web of Science, Psych Articles, PsychInfo, MEDLINE, and Embase. Articles were included if they included community dwellers with dementia or MCI, reported HPA metrics derived from digital technology, were published in English, and were peer reviewed. Articles were excluded if they considered populations without dementia or MCI diagnoses, were based in aged care settings, did not concern digitally derived HPA metrics, or were only concerned with physical activity interventions. Key outcomes extracted included the methods and metrics used to assess HPA and differences in HPA outcomes across the cognitive spectrum. Data were synthesized narratively. An adapted version of the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies was used to assess the quality of articles. Due to significant heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not feasible. Results: A total of 3394 titles were identified, with 33 articles included following the systematic review. The quality assessment suggested that studies were moderate-to-good quality. Accelerometers worn on the wrist or lower back were the most prevalent methods, while metrics relating to volume (eg, daily steps) were most common for measuring HPA. People with dementia had lower volumes, intensities, and variability with different daytime patterns of HPA than controls. Findings in people with MCI varied, but they demonstrated different patterns of HPA compared to controls. Conclusions: This review highlights limitations in the current literature, including lack of standardization in methods, protocols, and metrics; limited information on validity and acceptability of methods; lack of longitudinal research; and limited associations between HPA metrics and clinically meaningful outcomes. Limitations of this review include the exclusion of functional physical activity metrics (eg, sitting/standing) and non-English articles. Recommendations from this review include suggestions for measuring and reporting HPA in people with cognitive impairment and for future research including validation of methods, development of a core set of clinically meaningful HPA outcomes, and further investigation of socioecological factors that may influence HPA participation.