Non-contact under-mattress sleep monitoring

Sleep quality and duration are increasingly recognised as being important prognostic parameters in the assessment of an individual's health. However, reliable non-invasive long-term monitoring of sleep in a non-clinical setting remains a challenging problem. This paper describes the validation of a novel under mattress pressure sensing sleep monitoring modality that can be seamlessly integrated into existing home environments and provides a pervasive and distributed solution for monitoring long-term changes in sleep patterns and sleep disorders in adults. 410 minutes of concomitant Under Mattress Bed Sensor (UMBS) and strain gauge data were analysed from eight healthy adults lying passively. In this analysis, customised respirations rate detection algorithms yielded a mean difference of −0.12 breaths per five minutes and a mean percentage error (MPE) of 0.16% when the sensor was placed beneath the mattress. 1,491 minutes of UMBS and video data were recorded simultaneously from four participants in order to assess the movement detection efficacy of customised UMBS algorithms. These algorithms yielded accuracies, sensitivities and specificities of over 90% when compared to a video-based movement detection gold standard. A reduced data set (267 minutes) of wrist actigraphy, the gold standard ambulatory sleep monitor, was recorded. The UMBS was shown to outperform the movement detection ability of wrist actigraphy and has the added advantage of not requiring active subject participation.

An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.