Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40290578›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in aging2025

A scoping review of the feasibility, usability, and efficacy of digital interventions in older adults concerning physical activity and/or exercise.

Ethan C J Berry, Nicholas F Sculthorpe, Ashley Warner, James D Mather, Nilihan E M Sanal-Hayes, Lawrence D Hayes

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Experiences of technology for increasing physical activity of older adults: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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.

Ethan C J BerrySport and Physical Activity Research Institute, School of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Nicholas F SculthorpeSport and Physical Activity Research Institute, School of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Ashley WarnerSport and Physical Activity Research Institute, School of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
James D MatherSport and Physical Activity Research Institute, School of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Nilihan E M Sanal-HayesSchool of Health and Society, University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom.
Lawrence D HayesLancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The global population is aging, leading to significant health challenges among older adults, such as reduced muscle mass, increased risks of dementias, and chronic diseases. Physical activity (PA) is crucial for maintaining health and wellbeing in this demographic, yet participation tends to decrease with age due to various barriers. Digital technologies, including mobile health (mHealth) interventions, show promise in promoting PA among older adults, though their adoption remains limited due to intrinsic and extrinsic challenges. Objectives: This scoping review aimed to systematically map existing evidence on digital PA interventions for older adults, assessing feasibility, usability, and efficacy, whilst providing recommendations for future research and practice. Eligibility criteria: Original investigations concerning digital interventions in older adults (≥60 years of age) focusing on physical activity and/or exercise were considered. Sources of evidence: Four electronic databases [MEDLINE, CINAHL Ultimate, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)] were searched. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the scoping review methodological framework. Review selection and characterisation were carried out by two independent reviewers. Results: The 34 included studies were published between 2005 and 2023 across Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania. Participants varied from healthy to frail individuals, with some diagnosed with dementia or cognitive impairment. Interventions were most commonly delivered via exergames, tablet apps, and videoconferencing. The most common exercise program type was multicomponent. Most studies assessed efficacy, feasibility, and usability, with many using a combination of these measures. Reminders were commonly utilised to enhance engagement through various digital and non-digital methods. Conclusion: There was a notable lack of mobile health (mHealth) studies in the literature, with most research focusing on exergame and tablet interventions. More research on smartphone apps, particularly for muscle strengthening, is needed, and the growing ease of app development may drive innovation and research. Digital interventions are generally feasible, usable, and effective for older adults, offering a promising, scalable approach for promoting PA. This review identified several valuable lessons from the existent literature for future developments.

Indexed as

ageingdigital interventionseHealthexercisemHealthmuscle strengtheningphysical activity

Identifiers

PMID40290578
PMCPMC12021916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.