ArticleJMIR human factors2024
Smartphone App Designed to Collect Health Information in Older Adults: Usability Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behavioral Barriers to Digital Health and Conditions of Digital Resilience Among Older Adults: Evidence from China.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Characteristics of digital health technophobia and associated factors in older cancer patients: a latent profile analysis.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Toward Inclusive Design Heuristics for Digital Health Interventions for the Aging Population: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- A portable non-contact tongue imaging system with automated analysis for community and home settings.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStudies evaluating the usability of mobile-phone assessments in older adults are limited.
objectiveThis study aims to identify design-based barriers and facilitators to mobile app survey completion among 2 samples of older adults; those in the Framingham Heart Study and a more diverse sample from a hospital-based setting.
methodsWe used mixed methods to identify challenging and beneficial features of the mobile app in participants from the electronic Framingham Heart Study (n=15; mean age of 72 years; 6/15, 40% women; 15/15, 100% non-Hispanic and White) and among participants recruited from a hospital-based setting (n=15; mean age of 71 years; 7/15, 47% women; 3/15, 20% Hispanic; and 8/15, 53% non-White). A variety of app-based measures with different response formats were tested, including self-reported surveys, pictorial assessments (to indicate body pain sites), and cognitive testing tasks (eg, Trail Making Test and Stroop). Participants completed each measure using a think-aloud protocol, while being audio- and video-recorded with a qualitative interview conducted at the end of the session. Recordings were coded for participant usability errors by 2 pairs of coders. Participants completed the Mobile App Rating Scale to assess the app (response range 1=inadequate to 5=excellent).
resultsIn electronic Framingham Heart Study participants, the average total Mobile App Rating Scale score was 7.6 (SD 1.1), with no significant differences in the hospital-based sample. In general, participants were pleased with the app and found it easy to use. A large minority had at least 1 navigational issue, most committed only once. Most older adults did not have difficulty completing the self-reported multiple-choice measures unless it included lengthy instructions but participants had usability issues with the Stroop and Trail Making Test.
conclusionsOur methods and results help guide app development and app-based survey construction for older adults, while also giving consideration to sociodemographic differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.