Personalised and Sustainable IEQ Monitoring: Use of Multi-Modal and Pervasive Technologies.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring indoor environmental quality (IEQ) is important to better understand occupant health. Passive IEQ monitoring with digital technologies may provide insightful quantitative data to better inform, e.g., health interventions. Yet, many traditional approaches with known IEQ technologies have limited utility due to high costs or coarse granularity-focusing on the collective rather than individuals. Equally, subjective approaches (e.g., manual surveys) have poor adherence (i.e., are burdensome). There is a need for holistic IEQ measurement techniques that are sustainable (affordable, i.e., low-cost) and personalised. Here, the aim of this case report is to explore the use of low-cost digital approaches to gather personalised quantitative and qualitative data. METHODS: This study deploys a personalised monitoring approach with IEQ devices coupled to wearables, weather data, and qualitative data, captured through a post-study interview. RESULTS: The mixed-method, single-case approach gathered data continuously for six months with a reduced burden, by using digital technologies to affirm environmental factors, which were subjectively evaluated by the participant. Quantitative data reinforced qualitative data, removing the need for generalising qualitative findings against a collective. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the single-case, mixed-method approach used here can provide a holistic approach not previously obtainable with traditional pen-and-paper techniques alone. The use of a low-cost multi-modal device linked with common home and wearable technology suggest a contemporary and sustainable IEQ measurement approach that could inform future work to better determine occupant health.

A Scoping Review of Technological Approaches to Environmental Monitoring.

Indoor environment quality (IEQ) can negatively affect occupant health and wellbeing. Air quality, as well as thermal, visual and auditory conditions, can determine how comfortable occupants feel within buildings. Some can be measured objectively, but many are assessed by interpreting qualitative responses. Continuous monitoring by passive sensors may be useful to identify links between environmental and physiological changes. Few studies localise measurements to an occupant level perhaps due to many environmental monitoring solutions being large and expensive. Traditional models for occupant comfort analysis often exacerbate this by not differentiating between individual building occupants. This scoping review aims to understand IEQ and explore approaches as to how it is measured with various sensing technologies, identifying trends for monitoring occupant health and wellbeing. Twenty-seven studies were reviewed, and more than 60 state-of-the-art and low-cost IEQ sensors identified. Studies were found to focus on the home or workplace, but not both. This review also found how wearable technology could be used to augment IEQ measurements, creating personalised approaches to health and wellbeing. Opportunities exist to make individuals the primary unit of analysis. Future research should explore holistic personalised approaches to health monitoring in buildings that analyse the individual as they move between environments.

Towards measurement of the Healthy Ageing Phenotype in lifestyle-based intervention studies.

INTRODUCTION: Given the biological complexity of the ageing process, there is no single, simple and reliable measure of how healthily someone is ageing. Intervention studies need a panel of measures which capture key features of healthy ageing. To help guide our research in this area, we have adopted the concept of the "Healthy Ageing Phenotype" (HAP) and this study aimed to (i) identify the most important features of the HAP and (ii) identify/develop tools for measurement of those features. METHODS: After a comprehensive assessment of the literature we selected the following domains: physiological and metabolic health, physical capability, cognitive function, social wellbeing, and psychological wellbeing which we hoped would provide a reasonably holistic characterisation of the HAP. We reviewed the literature and identified systematic reviews and/or meta-analysis of cohort studies, and clinical guidelines on outcome measures of these domains relevant to the HAP. Selection criteria for these measures included: frequent use in longitudinal studies of ageing; expected to change with age; evidence for strong association with/prediction of ageing-related phenotypes such as morbidity, mortality and lifespan; whenever possible, focus on studies measuring these outcomes in populations rather than on individuals selected on the basis of a particular disease; (bio)markers that respond to (lifestyle-based) intervention. Proposed markers were exposed to critique in a Workshop held in Newcastle, UK in October 2012. RESULTS: We have selected a tentative panel of (bio)markers of physiological and metabolic health, physical capability, cognitive function, social wellbeing, and psychological wellbeing which we propose may be useful in characterising the HAP and which may have utility as outcome measures in intervention studies. In addition, we have identified a number of tools which could be applied in community-based intervention studies designed to enhance healthy ageing. CONCLUSIONS: We have proposed, tentatively, a panel of outcome measures which could be deployed in community-based, lifestyle intervention studies. The evidence base for selection of measurement domains is less well developed in some areas e.g. social wellbeing (where the definition of the concept itself remains elusive) and this has implications for the identification of appropriate tools. Although we have developed this panel as potential outcomes for intervention studies, we recognise that broader agreement on the concept of the HAP and on tools for its measurement could have wider utility and e.g. could facilitate comparisons of healthy ageing across diverse study designs and populations.