Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36951896›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Digital Technologies for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in Older People: Scoping Review.

Karina Karolina De Santis, Lea Mergenthal, Lara Christianson, Annalena Busskamp, Claudia Vonstein, Hajo Zeeb

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07345832 (The Effect of Volunteer-Engaged Lifestyle Optimisation Via ICOPE on Sarcopenia in Older Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 84 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
66.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07345832 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Volunteer-Engaged Lifestyle Optimisation Via ICOPE on Sarcopenia in Older Adults (VELO-S): A Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2026 to 2027Enrolled200ConditionsSarcopenia, Sarcopenia in Elderly, Fall Prevention in Healthy Aging, Frailty SyndromeArmsVolunteer-Engaged Lifestyle Optimisation via ICOPE for Sarcopenia program (VELO-S), Attention control
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Karina Karolina De SantisDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7647-6767
Lea MergenthalDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6860-3295
Lara ChristiansonDepartment of Administration, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7780-255X
Annalena BusskampDepartment Q6- Adults, Seniors, Women's and Men's Health, Health Equity, Federal Centre for Health Education, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3393-9976
Claudia VonsteinDepartment Q6- Adults, Seniors, Women's and Men's Health, Health Equity, Federal Centre for Health Education, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7530-7707
Hajo ZeebDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7509-242X
Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS · DEFederal Centre for Health Education · DEUniversity of Bremen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital technologies have the potential to contribute to health promotion and disease prevention in the aging world.

objectiveThis study aims to identify digital technologies for health promotion and disease prevention that could be used independently by older people in nonclinical settings using a scoping review.

methodsThrough database (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and SCOPUS; to March 3, 2022) and manual searches (to June 14, 2022), 90 primary studies and 8 systematic reviews were included in this scoping review. The eligibility was based on the PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) criteria: (1) people aged 50 years or older (population), (2) any digital (health) technology (eg, smartphone apps, websites, virtual reality; concept), and (3) health promotion and disease prevention in daily life in nonclinical and noninstitutional settings (context). Data items included study characteristics, PCC criteria, opportunities versus challenges, and evidence gaps. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively described by identifying common themes.

resultsThe studies were published in 2005-2022 and originated predominantly from North America and Europe. Most primary studies were nonrandomized, reported quantitative data, and investigated effectiveness or feasibility (eg, acceptance or usability) of digital technologies in older people. The participants were aged 50 years to 99 years, predominantly female, affluent (ie, with high income, education, and digital competence), and intended to use or used digital technologies for a median of 3 months independently at home or in community settings. The digital technologies included mobile or nonmobile technologies or virtual reality. The studies used "modern devices" (eg, smartphones, wearables, or gaming consoles) or modern and "older devices" (eg, computers or mobile phones). The users interacted with digital technologies via websites, emails, text messages, apps, or virtual reality. Health targets of digital technologies were mobility, mental health, nutrition, or cognition. The opportunities versus challenges of digital technologies were (1) potential health benefits versus unclear or no benefits for some outcomes, (2) monitoring of health versus ethical issues with data collection and management, (3) implications for functioning in daily life (ie, potential to prolong independent living) versus unclear application for clinical management or care, (4) tailoring of technical properties and content toward older users versus general use, (5) importance of human support for feasibility versus other factors required to improve feasibility, (6) reduction of social isolation versus access to digital technologies, and (7) improvement in digital competence versus digital divide.

conclusionsVarious digital technologies were independently used by people aged 50 years or older for health promotion and disease prevention. Future studies should focus on (1) more diverse populations of older people, (2) new digital technologies, (3) other (clinical and care) settings, and (4) outcome evaluation to identify factors that could enhance any health benefits of digital technologies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/37729.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyMobile ApplicationsAgedAgingFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleSmartphonedigital public healthdigital technologydisease preventionelderly populationhealth promotionhealth technologyhealthy agingolder adultolder populationscoping review

Identifiers

PMID36951896
PMCPMC10131689
OpenAlexW4360600360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.