Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleMethodology

Objective Measurement of Sociability and Activity: Mobile Sensing in the Community

Ethan M. Berke, Tanzeem Choudhury, Shahid Ali and Mashfiqui Rabbi
The Annals of Family Medicine July 2011, 9 (4) 344-350; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1266
Ethan M. Berke
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tanzeem Choudhury
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shahid Ali
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mashfiqui Rabbi
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Participant Questionnaire and Sensor Data (N=8)

    AssessmentMean (SD)Range
    CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression; MCS = mental component score; PCS = physical component score; SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; YPAS = Yale Physical Activity Survey.
    a Scores at the start and end of the study did not differ significantly. Scores shown are from the start of the study.
    b For this activity, n = 7.
    Questionnairea
        SF-36 summary score77.9 (16)55–97
        SF-36 PCS68.8 (22.5)35–92
        SF-36 MCS88.0 (10.9)64–100
        CES-D7.2 (8.2)0.5–25.0
        YPAS, hr22.6 (14.4)1.0–42.5
        YPAS, kcal/wk5,980.5 (4,123.5)180–13,155
        Friendship Scale20.8 (3.2)14–24
    Sensor
        Speakingb20.7 (6.1)9.6–29.1
        Stationary63.2 (5.7)54.6–73.4
        Walking level7.1 (5.6)2.7–18.4
        Walking up5.8 (4.9)0.7–17.5
        Walking down8.1 (5.1)2.1–17.5
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Correlations Between Questionnaire and Sensor Data

    QuestionnaireSpeakingar2(PValue)Physical Activity Scorebr2(PValue)Walking Levelar2(PValue)Stationaryar2(PValue)Walking Upar2(PValue)Walking Downar2(PValue)
    CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression; MCS = mental component score; PCS = Physical Component Score; SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; YPAS = Yale Physical Activity Survey.
    a Fraction of time (speaking) or percentage of time (walking, stationary) spent in this activity.
    b Weighted using the following weights: 0.6 for stationary, 3 for walking level, 5 for walking up, 1 for walking down, and −1.5 for unclassified.
    SF-36 MCS0.86 (.03)–––––
    CES-D−0.75 (.08)–––––
    Friendship Scale0.97 (.002)–––––
    YPAS hours–0.79 (.02)−0.50 (.21)−0.68 (.07)0.80 (.02)0.72 (.43)
    YPAS kcal/week–0.82 (.01)−0.52 (.18)−0.60 (.12)0.82 (.01)0.65 (.08)
    SF-36 PCS–−0.29 (.49)0.21 (.62)0.47 (.24)−0.56 (.15)0.18 (.66)
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Associations Between Questionnaire and Sensor Data

    QuestionnaireSensor MeasureUnadjusted β Coefficient (95% CI)PValueAdjusted β Coefficient (95% CI)PValue
    CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression; CI = confidence interval; MCS = mental component score; PCS = physical component score; SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; YPAS = Yale Physical Activity Survey.
    Notes: Questionnaire is the dependent variable, and sensor measure is the independent variable. Speaking, stationary, walking flat, walking up, and walking down are percentages of time spent in those activities.
    a Adjusted for age and sex.
    b Adjusted for age, sex, marital status, and pet ownership.
    c Weighted using the following weights: 0.6 for stationary, 3 for walking level, 5 for walking up, 1 for walking down, and −1.5 for unclassified.
    Behavior
        SF-36 MCSSpeaking1.29 (−0.46 to 2.62).0551.14 (−0.36 to 2.65)a.08
        CES-DSpeaking−1.14 (−2.42 to 0.13).07−1.23 (−2.38 to −0.77)a.04
        Friendship ScaleSpeaking0.58 (0.44 to 0.72)<.0010.49 (0.027 to 0.95)a.045
    Physical activity
    SF-36 PCSPhysical activity scorec−0.32 (−1.27 to 0.63).440.71 (−0.60 to 2.02)b.14
    Stationary1.67 (−2.06 to 5.4).32−0.38 (−3.06 to 2.30)a.71
    Walking level0.76 (−2.51 to 4.03).590.97 (−2.02 to 3.96)a.42
    Walking up−2.31 (−4.48 to −0.13).041.68 (−7.00 to 10.36)a.62
    Walking down0.73 (−2.36 to 3.81).59−0.37 (−2.32 to 1.59)a.63
    YPAS total hoursPhysical activity scorec0.57 (0.36 to 0.78).0010.31 (−0.17 to 0.79)b.11
    Stationary−1.57 (−2.68 to −0.47).01−1.30 (−2.52 to −0.07)a.04
    Walking level−1.18 (−2.46 to 0.091).06−0.40 (−3.77 to 2.97)a.76
    Walking up2.12 (1.06 to 3.18).0035.06 (−0.31 to 10.43)a.06
    Walking down1.85 (0.48 to 3.22).021.98 (0.80 to 3.16)a.01
    YPAS kcal/weekPhysical activity scorec152.3 (97.8 to 206.8)<.00195.7 (50.0 to 141.4)b.01
    Stationary−358.5 (−700.8 to −16.2).04−230.5 (−551.9 to 90.9)a.12
    Walking level−319.5 (−660.9 to 22.0).06−51.3 (−791.3 to 688.7)a.86
    Walking up567.9 (269.8 to 865.9).0031,148.4 (263.9 to 2,032.9)a.02
    Walking down431.9 (37.7 to 826.1).04374.8 (31.3 to 718.3)c.04

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • The Article in Brief

    Objective Measurement of Sociability and Activity: Mobile Sensing in the Community

    Ethan M. Berke , and colleagues

    Background Health behavior data are often collected in laboratory settings or through surveys or self-reports, but these measures have a number of limitations. Mobile sensing of health behavior in the patient's natural environment over extended periods of time holds promise for clinicians, patients, and researchers. This study tests an automated behavioral monitoring system for sensing, recognizing, and presenting a range of physical, social, and mental indicators of well-being in natural everyday settings in older adults.

    What This Study Found The study offers a provocative glimpse into the possibilities of wireless mobile technology to measure elderly patients� physical activity and social interactions and improve detection of changes in their health. Sensors on a waist-mounted wireless mobile device worn by 8 patients aged 65 years and older continuously measured patients� time spent walking level, up or down an elevation, and stationary (sitting or standing), and time spent speaking with one or more other people. Data from the mobile sensors correlated highly with results obtained using four established questionnaires. Moreover, study participants found the device easy to use, comfortable to wear, and more convenient than written questionnaires, which rely on recall and are more prone to biases.

    Implications

    • Automated inference of behavior using commonly available mobile devices is potentially feasible and valid in older populations.
    • Data obtained through mobile sensing could potentially link to patients� electronic health records, providing clinicians a rich source of information that could alert them of changes in a patient�s behavior before it is identified by family or caregivers.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (4)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (4)
Vol. 9, Issue 4
1 Jul 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Objective Measurement of Sociability and Activity: Mobile Sensing in the Community
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 9 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Objective Measurement of Sociability and Activity: Mobile Sensing in the Community
Ethan M. Berke, Tanzeem Choudhury, Shahid Ali, Mashfiqui Rabbi
The Annals of Family Medicine Jul 2011, 9 (4) 344-350; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1266

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Objective Measurement of Sociability and Activity: Mobile Sensing in the Community
Ethan M. Berke, Tanzeem Choudhury, Shahid Ali, Mashfiqui Rabbi
The Annals of Family Medicine Jul 2011, 9 (4) 344-350; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1266
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Using digital health tools for the Remote Assessment of Treatment Prognosis in Depression (RAPID): a study protocol for a feasibility study
  • Social Media and the Science of Health Behavior
  • In This Issue: Technology and Primary Care
  • The Potential of Sensor-Based Monitoring as a Tool for Health Care, Health Promotion, and Research
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Joint Display of Integrated Data Collection for Mixed Methods Research: An Illustration From a Pediatric Oncology Quality Improvement Study
  • Patient-Guided Tours: A Patient-Centered Methodology to Understand Patient Experiences of Health Care
  • Putting Evidence Into Practice: An Update on the US Preventive Services Task Force Methods for Developing Recommendations for Preventive Services
Show more Methodology

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Health promotion
  • Person groups:
    • Older adults
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other topics:
    • Health informatics
    • Research capacity building
    • Possible emerging topic

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine