ArticleJMIR aging2026
Motivations, Barriers, and the Potential of AI in Physical Activity Apps for US Older Adults: Interview 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The older adult population is increasing rapidly and experiences a multitude of chronic conditions affecting quality of life. Physical activity and reduced sedentary behavior reduce adverse health conditions and help preserve functional independence and cognitive abilities, but the older adult age group has much lower levels of physical activity than recommended compared with other population demographics. Objective: The study aimed to understand older adults' motivations toward health and physical activity and the role of technology in achieving their health and physical activity goals and to explore the attitudes toward the use of generative AI in health apps. Methods: This study was qualitative and based on hour-long interviews with 20 older adults living in the United States. To elicit specific design preferences, participants were presented with visual probes of AI-generated avatars. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis, and the coding process drew on reflexive and grounded theory techniques. Results: Older adults primarily wished to maintain functional independence, both physical and cognitive, prioritizing baseline maintenance rather than continuous optimization. They reported satisfaction with levels of physical activity, adjusting them to chronic conditions and injuries. They were active through everyday functions of living as well as structured exercise programs with many participants using wearable devices and smartphones to help monitor their activity. They reported being motivated by social accountability and gamification, although some found the latter condescending or anxiety-inducing. Accessibility issues were mentioned frequently, including problems with touchscreens, limited viewing, difficulty navigating interfaces with clutter, complex multitouch processes for undertaking actions, and steep learning curves. Computers were preferred for certain tasks over mobile phones due to easier viewability, keyboard access, and greater security features. Personalization was highly desired in health apps. There was a willingness to use more health technology, including generative AI, and they were willing to consider AI in both motivational and informational roles in apps as long as it was personalized. AI embodiment preferences varied widely but with an emphasis on relatability. However, there was marked skepticism toward data privacy, concerns about the loss of independence and self-efficacy, and doubts about AI's accuracy. Conclusions: Older adults are primarily motivated by sustaining functional independence, although accessibility barriers in current health apps remain. Participants were open to AI for physical activity support, but expectations varied. They viewed AI as a passive "tool," a directive "coach," or a relational "companion." Considerable variation in preferences for gamification and visual design suggested that future apps require greater modularity. As skepticism over data privacy and AI accuracy remains high, greater transparency and explainability might be needed to engender trust.
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.