ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Healthcare applications for elderly: a scoping review and a practical roadmap for developing health apps.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this scoping assessment, our primary goal was to investigate the uses of health apps for elder citizens. Original articles and a few relevant sources have been mined in this regard. A development roadmap for health apps has also been created.
methodThis scoping review is divided into three sections: 1. A thorough analysis of the pertinent literature and gray sources; 2. A qualitative study intended to produce a roadmap for the development of healthcare apps; 3. Grouping related concepts into descriptive themes. The study team looked through three distinct databases in order to conduct a scoping review. To obtain material published between January 1, 2015, and July 24 and 25, 2023, we used electronic search tactics from Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus.
resultsThere were 46 citations with studies meeting our criterion. Of the 46 studies that were analyzed, 30% (n = 14) were carried out in the United States, while 6% (n = 3) were carried out in Canada. The developed apps offer five primary advantages, with 46 reviewed publications highlighting improved physical health as the most significant outcome. Because of the technological development, people and governments are considering creating and developing various apps to increase physical stamina, which can lead to enhanced overall health and fitness levels among users. Twenty-eight (60%) of the developed apps demonstrated a positive impact on the metrics evaluated through urgent reasoning. The majority of these assessments have focused on usability or ease of use. A product's usability can be assessed at several phases of development. Continual usability testing during the development phase improves the product's responsiveness to user needs, ensuring that the final product aligns closely with user expectations and requirements. Without relying on statistical calculations, 12 apps, or 26%, demonstrated positive results. A useful roadmap for creating and implementing healthcare apps can be found, and it consists of 14 primary phases with accompanying sub-actions.
conclusionThe papers under investigation show that developed apps significantly improve the health of elderly adults, and we will highlight their numerous benefits. The literature review and thematic analysis revealed that the creation of health applications requires more than fundamental technological design; it necessitates a multi-phase, user-centered, and market-oriented approach within a specified timeframe.
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.