ArticleJMIR aging2025
Assessment of Technology Readiness in Norwegian Older Adults With Long-Term Health Conditions Receiving Home Care Services: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.
Article in JMIR aging, 2025. 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.
- Patients' Perspectives on Applications of AI and Personalized Medicine in Life-Threatening Heart Disease: European Cross-Sectional Patient Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of pharmacist-led remote patient monitoring for carvedilol dose titration in clinically significant portal hypertension.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Measuring eHealth Literacy in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Digital Readiness Among 3555 Individuals With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis Initiating a Supervised Education and Exercise Therapy Programme: A Cross-Sectional Study.Musculoskeletal care · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increasing number of older adults globally, there is a constant search for new ways to organize health care services. Digital health services are promising and may reduce workload and at the same time improve patient well-being. A certain level of eHealth literacy is needed to be able to use digital health services. However, knowledge of technology readiness in this target group of older adults is unclear.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to understand the technology readiness level of a group of older adults who were provided home care services in order to address the present and future needs of this group in relation to the implementation of digital health care services.
methodsThis quantitative cross-sectional study included 149 older adults from Norway receiving home care services. The participants completed the Readiness and Enablement Index for Health Technology (READHY) instrument, assessments of well-being (World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index [WHO-5]), and assessments of demographic and clinical variables (sex, age, education, living situation, comorbidity, use of digital devices, and use of IT). Cluster analyses were used to group the users according to their technology readiness.
resultsThe mean participant age was 78.6 (SD 8.0) years, and 55.7% (83/149) were women. There was good consistency within the assumed READHY scales (Cronbach α=.61-.91). The participants were grouped into 4 clusters, which differed in terms of READHY scores, demographic variables, and the use of IT in daily life. Participants in cluster 1 (n=40) had the highest scores on the READHY scales, were younger, had a larger proportion of men, had higher education, and had better access to digital devices and IT. Participants in cluster 4 (n=16) scored the lowest on eHealth literacy knowledge. Participants in cluster 1 had relatively high levels of eHealth literacy knowledge and were expected to benefit from digital health services, while participants in cluster 4 had the lowest level of eHealth literacy and would not easily be able to start using digital health services.
conclusionsThe technology readiness level varied in our cohort of Norwegian participants receiving home care. Not all elderly people have the eHealth literacy to fully benefit from digital health services. Participants in cluster 4 (n=16) had the lowest scores in the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire scales in the READHY instrument and should be offered nondigital services or would need extensive management support. The demographic differences between the 4 clusters may inform stakeholders about which older people need the most training and support to take advantage of digital health care services.
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.