Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40840434›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2025

Implementing a Digital Physical Activity Intervention for Older Adults: Qualitative Study.

Cherish Boxall, Laura Dennison, Sascha Miller, Judith Joseph, Kate Morton, Jenny Corser, Joanna Kesten, Asgar Electicwala, Max J Western, Stephen Lim and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
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

13 authors.

Cherish Boxall *Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7850-233X
Laura Dennison *School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 02380595000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0122-6610
Sascha MillerSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 02380595000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1949-5774
Judith JosephSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 02380595000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0835-882X
Kate MortonSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 02380595000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6674-0314
Jenny CorserSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1491-1801
Joanna KestenSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 02380595000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3674-6045
Asgar ElecticwalaSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 02380595000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-2808-057X
Max J WesternCentre for Motivation and Health Behaviour Change, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1107-8498
Stephen LimSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 02380595000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2496-2362
Chloe GrimmettSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 02380595000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7540-7206
Lucy YardleySchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 02380595000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3853-883X
Katherine BradburySchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, 44 02380595000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5513-7571

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Physical activity (PA) in older adults can prevent, treat, or offset symptoms and deterioration from various health conditions and help maintain independence. However, most older adults are insufficiently active. Digital interventions have the potential for high reach at low cost. Objective: This paper reports on the implementation of "Active Lives," a digital intervention developed specifically for older adults. Methods: This study had a qualitative design. The implementation team approached a range of National Health Service, public health, community, and third-sector organizations in the United Kingdom to offer Active Lives to as large and diverse groups of older adults as possible. Alongside real-world implementation activities, research was conducted to explore what supports and inhibits the implementation of a digital intervention for PA in older adults. Data collection involved interviews with implementation partners (n=15) and the implementation team (n=3) plus extensive field notes from stakeholder communications. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: Five broad themes were developed, capturing implementation barriers and facilitators. These were (1) complex and opaque networks and influencers, (2) forming an understanding of Active Lives and its fit, (3) a landscape of competition and conflicting interests, (4) navigating unclear approval processes, and (5) shifting strategies: small and effortful to high reach and passive. Identifying key decision makers proved arduous, consuming significant time and resources, and proposals from enthusiastic implementation partners often proved impractical or overly burdensome. Health care professionals demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the potential benefits of digital interventions in alleviating operational burdens and improving patient care. However, stakeholders from disparate sectors held reservations about digital intervention and had different views on the best approaches to supporting PA among older adults. This discord was exacerbated by conflicts with existing local initiatives, such as group exercise programs, which occasionally hindered the implementation of Active Lives. Furthermore, bureaucratic hurdles within National Health Service trust approval processes acted as formidable obstacles, dampening progress and resolve, highlighting the need for guidance in identifying sustainable and scalable practices. Conclusions: The findings highlight important implementation challenges to digital PA interventions for older adults such as bureaucratic barriers and alignment with ongoing initiatives. This research emphasizes the necessity for strategic direction and multilevel guidance to efficiently implement digital interventions for PA among community-dwelling older adults.

Indexed as

ExerciseHealth PromotionAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomagingdigital healthdigital interventiondigital technologyexercisingimplementationmobile appolder adultolder peoplephysical activityphysical exercisesmartphone

Identifiers

PMID40840434
PMCPMC12370260

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.