ArticleJMIR aging2026
Performance-Based Usability of Medication Adherence Technologies Among Older Adults With Diverse Capabilities: Quantitative Study.
Article in JMIR aging, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medication adherence technologies (MATs) offer innovative solutions to support older adults in managing complex medication regimens, yet usability challenges can prevent their successful use. Older adults often face cognitive, physical, sensory, motivational, and environmental barriers, which can influence how they interact with these devices. Therefore, performance-based usability testing is essential for identifying usability issues. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance-based usability and user experience of 13 MATs among older adults with diverse capabilities. Methods: A prospective mixed methods design was used, with 96 participants aged 60 years and older testing smart and electronic MATs using cognitive walkthroughs and predefined usability tasks without formal training to simulate first-use conditions. This manuscript focuses specifically on the performance-based usability metrics collected as part of the mixed methods study. Validated tools, including the Self-Medication Assessment Tool (SMAT), Daily Living Tasks Dependent on Vision (DLTV), Whisper Test, Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale (SEAMS), and Martin and Park Environmental Demands (MPED) Questionnaire, were used to assess individual barriers. Poisson generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to determine predictors of unassisted task success and error rates while accounting for repeated observations. Results: A total of 96 participants (mean age 75.1, SD 7.7, range 61-95 y) were included, with 37.5% (36/96) male and 62.5% (60/96) female. Poisson GEE models identified significant predictors of unassisted task success rate, including cognitive score (P<.001), physical score (P<.001), vision score (P<.001), motivational score (P<.001), and lower environmental busyness (P=.049). Female sex was associated with a 9% lower success rate (P=.002). Predictors of total error rate included age (P=.02), sex (P≤.001), physical score (P≤.001), vision score (P=.004), DLTV vision score (P=.01), MPED routine score (environmental; P=.05), and interaction between physical score and sex (P=.004). Conclusions: Both device design and user characteristics strongly influence the usability of MATs. Performance-based evaluations provide actionable findings for user-centered design and selection, guiding manufacturers and health care providers toward developing and choosing accessible technologies that could improve medication adherence among older adults.
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.