Next Article in Journal
Influence of Surface and Bulk Defects on Contactless Resistivity Measurements of CdTe and Related Compounds
Next Article in Special Issue
Feature Selection for Health Care Costs Prediction Using Weighted Evidential Regression
Previous Article in Journal
LdsConv: Learned Depthwise Separable Convolutions by Group Pruning
Previous Article in Special Issue
A New Architecture Based on IoT and Machine Learning Paradigms in Photovoltaic Systems to Nowcast Output Energy
Open AccessReview

Enabling Older Adults’ Health Self-Management through Self-Report and Visualization—A Systematic Literature Review

by Gabriela Cajamarca 1,‡, Valeria Herskovic 1,*,‡ and Pedro O. Rossel 2,3,‡
1
Department of Computer Science, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 7820436, Chile
2
Department of Computer Science, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción 4090541, Chile
3
Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Ambientes Sustentables (CIBAS), Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción 4090541, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This manuscript is an extended version of the conference paper “Monitoring Older Adults’ Health Information Using Mobile Technology: A Systematic Literature Review” presented at the 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient Intelligence UCAmI 2019, Toledo, Spain, 2–5 December 2019.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sensors 2020, 20(15), 4348; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20154348
Received: 28 June 2020 / Revised: 25 July 2020 / Accepted: 26 July 2020 / Published: 4 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from UCAmI 2019)

Abstract

Aging is associated with a progressive decline in health, resulting in increased medical care and costs. Mobile technology may facilitate health self-management, thus increasing the quality of care and reducing costs. Although the development of technology offers opportunities in monitoring the health of older adults, it is not clear whether these technologies allow older adults to manage their health data themselves. This paper presents a review of the literature on mobile health technologies for older adults, focusing on whether these technologies enable the visualization of monitored data and the self-reporting of additional information by the older adults. The systematic search considered studies published between 2009 and 2019 in five online databases. We screened 609 articles and identified 95 that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Smartphones and tablets are the most frequently reported technology for older adults to enter additional data to the one that is monitored automatically. The recorded information is displayed on the monitoring device and screens of external devices such as computers. Future designs of mobile health technology should allow older users to enter additional information and visualize data; this could enable them to understand their own data as well as improve their experience with technology.
Keywords: mHealth; monitoring; mobile; wearable; sensor; health; older; self-report; visualization mHealth; monitoring; mobile; wearable; sensor; health; older; self-report; visualization

1. Introduction

Older adults are one of the fastest-growing demographic groups, generating a high demand for health, companionship and care services [1] that will only increase in the future. This increase in health service requirements in already overburdened healthcare systems could make it necessary for people to self-manage their health, for example through technology. Mobile technology refers to portable devices that users can carry with them (e.g., sensors, smartphones, or tablets) or wear. Mobile technology can be used to monitor, manage and motivate older adults in their care, for example, recording information such as the number of steps [2], heart rate [3], physical activity [4] or sleep quality [5] to assess health abnormalities and for the early detection of certain chronic diseases such as Parkinson’s disease or diabetes [6,7]. Mobile technology can help older adults maintain well-being and independence [8,9], for example, helping them change their eating behavior, physical activity, or emotional self-control [10,11,12], thus reducing the workload of health care providers, increasing efficiency, lowering health care costs, and improving patient comfort.
Even though older adults are often perceived as being wary of technology, some studies have found them to have a positive attitude towards it [13], finding benefits such as the possibility of supporting activities, adding convenience and being useful [13]. However, there is a digital divide, in which more privileged older adults (those with more education and higher income) have more Internet skills [14]. This, along with fear and anxiety when using technology, negative attitudes, feeling too old to learn, missing knowledge and experience, and not understanding digital terminology, can explain that some older adults feel resistance towards the use of technological tools [15]. Furthermore, the physical and neurodegenerative limitations [16] of older adults may make it necessary to create and design technologies to suit their specific needs, but in general terms, they are able to use almost any kind of technology, although sometimes with limitations. Regarding mobile technology, older adults are interested and have the intention to use it [17]. For example, most older adults are willing to use wearable devices, and the best predictor of their intention to do so is perceived usefulness [18].
On one hand, when mobile technology is used to monitor health, it is interesting to require the input of the user to complement data that may have been gathered automatically. The experience-sampling method asks users to provide self-reports of relevant data at random intervals [19]. For example, older adults can self-report pain [20] or monitor their blood glucose [7]. The input of information into a health monitoring device makes the user a more active participant in their own health, allowing them to complement automatically monitored data.
On the other hand, when data is monitored, a visualization of the data is usually output, or presented, to the users. Older adults have found visualizations to be useful to maintain awareness and recover from a bad day [21]. These visual representations of health data are important to maintain users’ self-awareness and interest in the health monitoring devices.
Previous studies on mobile technology for health monitoring of older adults have focused on mobile applications to assess balance as a risk factor for falls [22], on health monitoring in the home [23], on tools for the support of diseases or health conditions of older adults such as pain [17], cardiovascular disease [24], mental problems [25,26]. This systematic review aimed to collate studies of mobile technology designed for the health support of older adults, focusing on the input/output aspects of the technologies, that is, identifying whether these technologies allow older adults to visualize monitored information and whether they can enter complementary data such as context or feelings. We especially focus on older adults, since, as previously discussed, some of the consequences of aging relate to their capabilities when entering or visualizing information.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe the method used to locate and select studies for our review. In Section 3, we present the results as answers to our research questions. Then, we discuss our findings and present the conclusions.

2. Research Methods

This section describes the methodological framework used in this review, including the search strategy, search terms, selection of relevant articles, and data extraction.

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

A systematic search strategy was designed using the PRISMA guidelines [27], with the goal of having an overview of the mobile technology used for health monitoring of older adults. The research questions that guided the search and review were posed through the PICO format (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) [28]. The following three research questions were defined:
  • RQ1 Which health information about older adults is usually monitored?
  • RQ2 What type of mobile technology is used by older adults to record and display health information?
    -
    Do mobile health technologies for older adults include self-reporting?
    -
    Do mobile health technologies for older adults include data visualization?
  • RQ3 How are mobile health technologies for older adults evaluated?

2.2. Search Terms

We defined our question of interest by using the three main PICO terms (Population, Intervention, and Outcome) (see Table 1). Our population of interest is older adults, who we consider to be anyone over 65 years old [29]. The intervention we are interested in studying is the use of mobile technology to record health information. The search includes features of the technology, such as the input of additional information (e.g., self-report) and data visualization, to evaluate the outcomes that they may have in health management.
The PICO terms allowed us to create a group of synonyms that were combined with the AND and OR operators to form a search string (Table 1). The asterisk operator (*) indicates that there may be more letters after the root word. We used this search string in four data sources: (1) Pubmed; (2) ACM Digital Library; (3) IEEE Xplore; and (4) Science Direct, by searching in publication titles, keywords and abstracts. The four data sources were selected to cover research related to health, computing, and technology.

2.3. Study Selection

The systematic search was carried out during November 2019. The search used the following eligibility criteria—(1) peer-reviewed articles, published in English between 2010 and 2019, (2) mobile technology (portable devices that users can carry with them) for monitoring the health of older adults, (3) mobile technology targeted at older adults to support the collection or display of health information. The exclusion criteria were that the technology was managed by third parties (caregivers, family, health professionals) and not by older adults, that the research did not present an evaluation, that the article was a research summary, invited plenary sessions, letters to the editor, or reviews, or if the article was not available for downloading.

2.4. Data Extraction

The analysis was carried out in a three-step process. First, the selected articles from all sources were organized in one file and duplicates were eliminated. Second, two reviewers (GC and PR) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the articles to decide whether an article met the inclusion criteria. Articles with two votes for inclusion or exclusion were automatically included or excluded. Disputed articles were resolved by a third reviewer (VH). Finally, two reviewers (GC and PR) read the full text and extracted relevant information.

3. Results

3.1. Reviewing Process

The first search of the four databases identified 609 publications. After eliminating duplicates, 417 results were left and of these, 240 were excluded based on a review of titles and abstracts. Subsequently, 177 articles were assessed for eligibility through full-text analysis and 103 publications met the inclusion criteria. Eight of these papers were shorter versions of other publications available in the corpus of identified publications, so the reviewers in a consensus discussion resolved not to include them in the results. In total, 95 publications were included in this report. The study selection process is depicted in Figure 1.
In the next subsections, we show the results in terms of 4 topics—(1) general study demographics including years and location, and the answers to each of our three research questions: (2) to answer RQ1, we describe which data is captured when monitoring the health of the older adults, (3) to answer RQ2, we describe characteristics of the monitoring technology (e.g., type, location, support), as well as the incorporation of self-reporting and visualization, and (4) to answer RQ3, we describe the methods used in the selected studies. These findings allow us to identify which mobile technologies are used to monitor and manage older adults’ health data and whether these technologies enable users to input additional information and visualize their health data.

3.2. General Study Characteristics

Figure 2 shows the number of publications by year and continent where the studies took place. Overall there is an increase in publications on mobile technology for monitoring the health of older adults in the 2009–2019 period. The number of studies increases from 3 in 2009 to 8 in 2014. In 2015, there is a decrease in publications (5), but the number of papers again increases from 2016 to 2019, reaching a maximum number of 19 studies in 2018. In terms of where the studies were conducted, 36 studies were done in North America (37.8%), 27 studies were conducted in Europe (28.4%), 13 in Asia (13.6%) and two in Latin America (2.1%). Most of the publications were presented as a journal article (55/95, 57.8%), followed by conference proceedings (24/95, 25.2%) and only 3 studies were part of a workshop (3.15%). The studies were published in the areas of health (57/95, 60%), computing (23/95, 24.2%) and 15 of them (15.8%) were presented in combined areas (i.e., health and computing).

3.3. Which Health Information about Older Adults Is Usually Monitored (RQ1)?

Table 2 summarizes the data that is monitored through mobile technology. The most common data that is captured is acceleration (58/95, 61.1%). Acceleration may be used to measure–or extrapolate–physical activity, activities of daily living (ADL), quality of sleep, or fall detection. The next type of frequently captured information is physiological parameters (26/95, 27.4%), including heart rate, blood pressure, foot pressure temperature, and blood oxygen saturation. Following this, we have process indicators (10/95, 10.5%) that are data related to the number of medications, interactions, messages, voltage, and memory skills. Other types of information such as sleep (8/95, 8,4%), emotions (5/95, 5.3%), position (4/95, 4.2%), pain (4/95, 4.2%), and time (4/95, 4.2%) were also recorded.
We identified several purposes for the collection of data—it was used (or expected to be used) for (1) general health monitoring (25/95, 26.3%), including monitoring feeding, sleep quality, physiological parameters, and medication management, (2) for gait detection (17/95, 17.9%), (3) fall monitoring (11/95, 11.6%), (4) physical activity (12/95, 12.6%), (5) activities of daily living (14/95, 14.7%), (6) rehabilitation (8/95, 8.4%), (7) mental health (6/95, 6.3%) and (8) social interaction (2/95, 2.1%).

3.4. What Type of Mobile Technology Is Used by Older Adults to Record and Display Health Information (RQ2)?

We identified 5 types of mobile technology used for older adults to monitor their health (Table 3)—(1) sensors, (2) smartphones, (3) tablets, (4) smart bracelets, and (5) tangibles. Sensors are the most frequently reported technology (60/95, 63.2%), and are used to record physiological information such as acceleration, heart rate, pressure, and strength. Sensors are devices that generally do not have their own interface and can function independently. Smartphones were used in 25.3% (24/95) of the reviewed studies. This technology allows the user to interact through touchscreen applications. Fourteen of the reviewed papers (14.7%, 14/95) presented a smart bracelet. These devices can include features such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, GPS, speaker, and screen. They also have connectivity mechanisms such as Bluetooth and WiFi. Some studies (12/95, 12.6%) presented applications to be used in a tablet device. Finally, technology with a tangible user interface was presented once (1/95, 1.1%). This technology refers to devices that allow users to interact with digital information through tangible objects.
Regarding where the technology is used, 12 locations were identified, including the hand (corresponding to handheld devices such as smartphones, tablets or mobile sensors) (38.9%), the wrist (24.2%), and the waist (17.8%). The least common location was the ear (2.1%).

3.4.1. Do Mobile Health Technologies for Older Adults Include Self-Reporting?

Almost half (46/95, 48.4%) of the studies include methods for the older adults to enter health information. Table 4 provides an overview of how each of these 46 papers allows the input of health data. Twenty-nine of these studies (63%, (29/46)) used a device, and 22 (47.8%) used standard forms such as paper writing to enter data. Data reported by older adults to supplement data monitored by sensors or portable tools included physical, physiological, behavioral, mental, and subjective data. Smartphones and tablets were the most frequently used technology (14/29, 48.3%) while sensors and smart bracelets were the least frequently used technologies (9/29, 31.0%) to perform this action (see Table 5).

3.4.2. Do Mobile Health Technologies for Older Adults Include Data Visualization?

Data collected from monitoring older adults’ health was displayed on screens in almost all studies (88/95, 92.6%). Out of these, 54 studies used the screen of the monitoring device to display information (61.3%), and 34 used external devices such as computers or tablets (38.6%). Of these 54 studies, 51 studies indicate that the display is intended for older adults (94.4%). However, only 12 of 51 studies (23.5%) evaluated characteristics of visualization such as clarity of information organization [30], straightforward understanding, and interpretation of displayed images [7], or the “look” of the visualizations (e.g., fonts, colors or size) [102]. In terms of data visualization using external devices, 4/34 articles (11.8%) focused on older adults, and among these 4 studies, only 2 studies (50%) evaluated aspects of visualization (see Table 6). One study evaluated compression of data displayed on the external device [113] and the other study compared visual feedback with animatronics (natural interaction) [72]. The technologies most frequently used by older adults to visualize health data were smartphones, sensors, and tablets. Smart bracelets were the least used (see Table 5).

3.5. How are Mobile Health Technologies for Older Adults Evaluated (RQ3)?

We studied how the mobile health technologies in the reviewed papers were evaluated. Out of the 95 studies, 58 applied quantitative methods (61.1%), 11 used qualitative methods (11.6%), and 26 used mixed methods, that is, both quantitative and qualitative methods (27.4%). The number of participants in the studies ranged from 3 to 3081 participants, with a mean of 101.3 and a median of 20. Only 9 studies had more than 100 participants. The average age of the participants in the studies was 63 years, with an age range from 23 to 86 years (median: 67). In general, most studies evaluated technology with older adult participants (63/95, 66.3%); only 5.3% (5/95) included young participants between 21 and 39 years old. Other studies (20/95, 21.1%) included both young and older adult participants. The rest of the studies (7/95, 7.4%) did not indicate the age of participants. Concerning mobile technology evaluation time, 49.5% of the reviewed publications reported that it ranged from 3 to 690 days, with a mean of 73 and a median of 42 days. Twelve studies reported evaluation periods shorter than 24 h. These shorter studies generally measured the accuracy of the technology. The remaining publications did not indicate the duration of the study.
Most of the reviewed studies recruited participants with underlying health conditions, for example, chronic conditions such as obesity and hypertension (8.4%) Parkinson’s disease (4.2%), chronic pain (3.2%), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (3.2%), and conditions causing cognitive impairment such as dementia, amnesic mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease (6.3%). In only 15 studies (15.8%), the selected participants were generally healthy.

4. Discussion

Several works analyze the design and operational aspects of mobile health technology for older adults. For example, a recent literature review studied the possible barriers for older adults to use mobile technology [116], and another study evaluated the effects of technology-based self-monitoring that intend to improve health in middle-aged and older adults [117]. Other works on mobile technology have focused on specific aspects of older adult health, such as pain [17], dementia [26], or falls [22]. Unlike these studies, we present a systematic review of the literature on mobile health technology for older adults with a focus on self-reporting and data visualization. In other words, we identify whether the proposed technologies allow older adults to enter complementary health data and whether that information is presented to the users as an appropriate visualization.
The creation of devices that allow the entry of information is an opportunity to provide information from the patient’s point of view, information that sensors may not include. For example, self-report measures remain the most widely used methods for assessing sedentary behavior in adults [118]. Furthermore, older adults may become active participants in monitoring their health by entering data that is complementary to sensor data. Previous studies indicate that one way for older adults to gain autonomy and better engagement with sensor data is to use tools that allow for data annotation [119]. When designing devices that enable older users to enter health information, it should be considered that such information may be subject to error due to a variety of factors, including memory, cognitive ability, and awareness of the older user.
There is a lack of studies that consider how to deliver and display health information to older adults through mobile technology. Older adults must be included in the analysis of their own data so that they can contribute their contextual knowledge and so that the data can allow them to understand and self-reflect on their own behavior. Aside from the characteristics of delivering and displaying health information, research is needed on what information we should show to adult users. While some data such as heart rate, position, or acceleration are data used to detect anomalies in users’ health, some older users may be less experienced with the meaning of this information. In general, interpreting sensor data to obtain relevant information requires a process and knowledge [119]. In this regard, displaying appropriate information can be challenging, especially if different stakeholders have different information needs. Some authors indicate that older adults have different information needs concerning health care providers [120]. Besides, some studies (14/95, 14.7%) used more than one device to support health management of older adults (see Table 5). The use of several devices simultaneously can cause cognitive challenges [121] and lead to errors in the handling of technology by older adults [122]. In turn, these challenges lead to resistance by older people to use technology in daily life.
We found that the most frequently used location to use technology that monitors the health of older adults is the hand. The handheld devices include smartphones, tablets, and touchscreens. Regarding wearables, the most frequent placements in the body were the wrist, hip, or pocket. One study found that hand, wrist, forearm, upper arm, upper chest above the breast, forehead, ear, and mid thigh are the most appropriate locations for using wearable technology successfully [123]. Our review found that hand and wrist are often-used locations for wearables, while the ear was only used twice. Another study on wearable devices for older adults indicates that the wrist has higher acceptability than the arm and neck; however, personal attributes of gender, experience with technology, and need for medical care affect user preferences and attitudes [124].
Although technologies exist that allow for data entry and visualization of recorded information, there is not enough research on evaluating whether older adults are able to perform self-reporting and visualization actions in a way that is comfortable and easy for them. For example, data visualizations have been designed from a clinical perspective resulting in medical personnel being the only ones who can view and understand the monitored information. More research is needed on the design and evaluation of technologies that are appropriate for older adults, so that they are the ones who can self-manage and understand the recorded data.
Some limitations should be considered when assessing the results of this systematic review. We only included papers written in the English language; we excluded articles on mobile technology administered by health personnel, caregivers, or family members of older adults. We also chose to exclude studies that have not been published in peer-reviewed journals, conferences, or workshops, and we may have therefore missed out on some research and commercial solutions. By focusing on mobile technology that the older adult can carry with them, this review does not include health technologies that use static systems such as Kinect or fixed sensors and smart homes.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review found a growing number of research articles on mobile technology for health management in older adults in the 2009–2019 period. Most of the reviewed literature came from North America, Europe, and Asia (see Figure 2), and the format of presentations included journals, conferences, and workshop papers. Mobile technology used by older adults to record health information includes sensors, smartphones, and tablets. Typical monitored information includes acceleration, physiological parameters, position, sleep quality, pain levels, and emotions (see Table 2). The collection of these data has allowed researchers to monitor health and well-being issues such as activities of daily living, fall detection, gait detection, health care, mental health, physical activities, rehabilitation, and social interaction. The detection of such activities is essential to support aging in the home [23]. Particular attention should be paid to the development of mobile technology that allows adult users to input information. It is also essential to evaluate if the visualizations are adequate for older adults; in other words, it is necessary to include this population in the understanding of their own data.
Future work could focus on how to create appropriate visualizations; for example, to evaluate the effectiveness and understandability of each type of data that is presented to the users. It would also be interesting to study the types of visualizations that are provided (e.g., numbers, graphs), as well as whether the systems provide alerts when health data is not within normal ranges.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.C., P.O.R. and V.H.; methodology, P.O.R. and V.H.; validation, V.H., G.C. and P.O.R.; formal analysis, G.C. and P.O.R.; investigation, G.C., P.O.R. and V.H.; resources, P.O.R.; data curation, G.C. and P.O.R.; writing—original draft preparation, G.C.; writing—review and editing, V.H., G.C. and P.O.R.; visualization, G.C.; supervision, V.H.; project administration, V.H.; funding acquisition, V.H. and G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was partly funded by CONICYT/FONDECYT 1181162, ANID-PFCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2018-21180784.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sanderson, W.C.; Scherbov, S.; Gerland, P. Probabilistic population aging. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0179171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Matthies, D.J.; Haescher, M.; Nanayakkara, S.; Bieber, G. Step Detection for Rollator Users with Smartwatches. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, Berlin, Germany, 13–14 October 2018; pp. 163–167. [Google Scholar]
  3. Redfern, J. Can Older Adults Benefit from Smart Devices, Wearables, and Other Digital Health Options to Enhance Cardiac Rehabilitation? Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2019, 35, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Boateng, G.; Batsis, J.A.; Proctor, P.; Halter, R.; Kotz, D. GeriActive: Wearable app for monitoring and encouraging physical activity among older adults. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks (BSN), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 4–7 March 2018; pp. 46–49. [Google Scholar]
  5. Loprinzi, P.D.; Cardinal, B.J. Association between objectively-measured physical activity and sleep, NHANES 2005–2006. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 2011, 4, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ginis, P.; Heremans, E.; Ferrari, A.; Dockx, K.; Canning, C.G.; Nieuwboer, A. Prolonged walking with a wearable system providing intelligent auditory input in people with Parkinson’s disease. Front. Neurol. 2017, 8, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Isaković, M.; Sedlar, U.; Volk, M.; Bešter, J. Usability pitfalls of diabetes mHealth apps for the elderly. J. Diabetes Res. 2016, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Koceski, S.; Koceska, N. Evaluation of an assistive telepresence robot for elderly healthcare. J. Med. Syst. 2016, 40, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Boz, H.; Karatas, S.E. A Review on Internet Use and Quality of Life of the Elderly. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 2015, 10, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. King, A.C.; Hekler, E.B.; Grieco, L.A.; Winter, S.J.; Sheats, J.L.; Buman, M.P.; Banerjee, B.; Robinson, T.N.; Cirimele, J. Effects of three motivationally targeted mobile device applications on initial physical activity and sedentary behavior change in midlife and older adults: A randomized trial. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0156370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, Y.C.; Chen, C.H.; Tsou, Y.C.; Lin, Y.S.; Chen, H.Y.; Yeh, J.Y.; Chiu, S.Y.H. Evaluating mobile health apps for customized dietary recording for young adults and seniors: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019, 7, e10931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tangtisanon, P. Real time Human Emotion Monitoring based on Bio-signals. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS), Daegwallyeong, Korea, 17–20 October 2018; pp. 513–517. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mitzner, T.L.; Boron, J.B.; Fausset, C.B.; Adams, A.E.; Charness, N.; Czaja, S.J.; Dijkstra, K.; Fisk, A.D.; Rogers, W.A.; Sharit, J. Older adults talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 1710–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hargittai, E.; Piper, A.M.; Morris, M.R. From internet access to internet skills: Digital inequality among older adults. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2019, 18, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Holgersson, J.; Söderström, E. Bridging the gap: Exploring elderly citizens’ perceptions of digital exclusion. In Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Association for Information Systems, Stockholm & Uppsala, Sweden, 8–14 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, Q.; Luximon, Y. Older Adults and Digital Technology: A Study of User Perception and Usage Behavior. In Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors, Walt Disney World®, Orlando, FL, USA, 27–31 July 2016; pp. 155–163. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bhattarai, P.; Phillips, J.L. The role of digital health technologies in management of pain in older people: An integrative review. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2017, 68, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Li, J.; Ma, Q.; Chan, A.H.; Man, S. Health monitoring through wearable technologies for older adults: Smart wearables acceptance model. Appl. Ergon. 2019, 75, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Larson, R.; Csikszentmihalyi, M. The experience sampling method. New Dir. Methodol. Soc. Behav. Sci. 1983, 15, 41–56. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rodriguez, I.; Herskovic, V.; Fuentes, C.; Campos, M. B-ePain: A wearable interface to self-report pain and emotions. In Proceedings of the ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct, Heidelberg, Germany, 12–16 September 2016; pp. 1120–1125. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pham, T.; Mejía, S.; Metoyer, R.A.; Hooker, K. The Effects of Visualization Feedback on Promoting Health Goal Progress in Older Adults. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Conference on Visualizatoin (EuroVis), Bergen, Norway, 31 May–3 June 2012. [Google Scholar]
  22. Roeing, K.L.; Hsieh, K.L.; Sosnoff, J.J. A systematic review of balance and fall risk assessments with mobile phone technology. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2017, 73, 222–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, L.; Stroulia, E.; Nikolaidis, I.; Miguel-Cruz, A.; Rincon, A.R. Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2016, 91, 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Searcy, R.P.; Summapund, J.; Estrin, D.; Pollak, J.P.; Schoenthaler, A.; Troxel, A.B.; Dodson, J.A. Mobile health technologies for older adults with cardiovascular disease: Current evidence and future directions. Curr. Geriatr. Rep. 2019, 8, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Harerimana, B.; Forchuk, C.; O’Regan, T. The use of technology for mental healthcare delivery among older adults with depressive symptoms: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2019, 28, 657–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Koo, B.M.; Vizer, L.M. Examining Mobile Technologies to Support Older Adults With Dementia Through the Lens of Personhood and Human Needs: Scoping Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019, 7, e15122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huang, K.C.; Chiang, I.J.; Xiao, F.; Liao, C.C.; Liu, C.C.H.; Wong, J.M. PICO element detection in medical text without metadata: Are first sentences enough? J. Biomed. Inf. 2013, 46, 940–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. World Health Organization. Definition of an Older or Elderly Person; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bhattacharjya, S.; Stafford, M.C.; Cavuoto, L.A.; Yang, Z.; Song, C.; Subryan, H.; Xu, W.; Langan, J. Harnessing smartphone technology and three dimensional printing to create a mobile rehabilitation system, mRehab: Assessment of usability and consistency in measurement. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2019, 16, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Hill, N.L.; Mogle, J.; Colancecco, E.; Dick, R.; Hannan, J.; Lin, F.V. Feasibility study of an attention training application for older adults. Int. J. Older People Nurs. 2015, 10, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hill, N.L.; Mogle, J.; Wion, R.; Kitt-Lewis, E.; Hannan, J.; Dick, R.; McDermott, C. App-based attention training: Incorporating older adults’ feedback to facilitate home-based use. Int. J. Older People Nurs. 2018, 13, e12163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mehra, S.; Visser, B.; Cila, N.; van den Helder, J.; Engelbert, R.H.; Weijs, P.J.; Kröse, B.J. Supporting older adults in exercising with a tablet: A usability study. JMIR Hum. Factors 2019, 6, e11598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lim, S.B.; Horslen, B.C.; Davis, J.R.; Allum, J.H.; Carpenter, M.G. Benefits of multi-session balance and gait training with multi-modal biofeedback in healthy older adults. Gait Posture 2016, 47, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Geraedts, H.A.; Zijlstra, W.; Zhang, W.; Bulstra, S.; Stevens, M. Adherence to and effectiveness of an individually tailored home-based exercise program for frail older adults, driven by mobility monitoring: Design of a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shimada, H.; Lee, S.; Doi, T.; Bae, S.; Makino, K.; Chiba, I.; Arai, H. Study protocol of the self-monitoring activity program: Effects of activity on incident dementia. Alzheimer’s Dement. Trans. Res. Clin. Interv. 2019, 5, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bieber, G.; Haescher, M.; Hanschmann, P.; Matthies, D.J. Exploring Accelerometer-based Step Detection By using a Wheeled Walking Frame. In Proceedings of the 5th international Workshop on Sensor-based Activity Recognition and Interaction, Berlin, Germany, 20–21 September 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhang, M.; Sawchuk, A.A. Context-aware fall detection using a bayesian network. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Workshop on Context-Awareness for Self-Managing Systems, Beijing, China, 17 September 2011; pp. 10–16. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chu, C.T.; Mao, W.L.; Hung, C.W.; Liao, J.X. Rotation memory neural network identify elders fall situation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Next Generation Electronics (ISNE2018), Taipei, Taiwan, 7–9 May 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  40. Chu, C.T.; Chang, C.H.; Chang, T.J.; Li, H.W. A dynamic gray model prediction fall detection signal analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Next Generation Electronics (ISNE2017), Keelung, Taiwan, 23–25 May 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  41. Shen, J.; Chen, Y.; Shen, Z.; Liu, S. A Two-Stage Incremental Update Method for Fall Detection with Wearable Device. In Proceedings of the IEEE SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced & Trusted Computing, Scalable Computing & Communications, Cloud & Big Data Computing, Internet of People and Smart City Innovation (SmartWorld/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCom/IOP/SCI), Guangzhou, China, 8–12 October 2018; pp. 364–371. [Google Scholar]
  42. Chu, C.T.; Mao, W.L.; Hung, C.W.; Liao, J.X. A Laypunov base fuzzy expert knowledge model identify elders fall signal. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Next Generation Electronics (ISNE2018), Taipei, Taiwan, 7–9 May 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  43. Han, M.; Chen, J.; Lei, Y.; Duan, X.; Jiao, B. An Intelligence Security Alarming System With Fall Detection Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 3rd Information Technology, Networking, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (ITNEC2019), Chengdu, China, 15–17 March 2019; pp. 2180–2184. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kuramoto, N.; Jayatilake, D.; Hidaka, K.; Suzuki, K. Smartphone-based swallowing monitoring and feedback device for mealtime assistance in nursing homes. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Orlando, FL, USA, 16–20 August 2016; pp. 5781–5784. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jie, L.J.; Jamin, G.; Smit, K.; Beurskens, A.; Braun, S. Design of the user interface for “Stappy”, A sensor-feedback system to facilitate walking in people after stroke: A user-centred approach. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cao, H.; Wu, S.; Zhou, Z.; Lin, C.C.; Yang, C.Y.; Lee, S.T.; Wu, C.T. A fall detection method based on acceleration data and hidden Markov model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Signal and Image Processing (ICSIP), Beijing, China, 13–15 August 2016; pp. 684–689. [Google Scholar]
  47. Merilahti, J.; Ermes, M. 3D accelerometer features’ differences between young and older people, and between lower back and neck band sensor placements. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Boston, MA, USA, 30 August–3 September 2011; pp. 7885–7887. [Google Scholar]
  48. Liu, S.H.; Chang, Y.J. Using accelerometers for physical actions recognition by a neural fuzzy network. Telemed. -Health 2009, 15, 867–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sunwoo, J.; Yuen, W.; Lutteroth, C.; Wünsche, B. Mobile games for elderly healthcare. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the NZ Chapter of the ACM Special Interest Group on Human-Computer Interaction, Auckland, New Zealand, 8–9 July 2010; pp. 73–76. [Google Scholar]
  50. Similä, H.; Immonen, M.; Niemirepo, T. Mobile fall risk assessment solution for daily-life settings. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Honolulu, HI, USA, 18–21 July 2018; pp. 1530–1533. [Google Scholar]
  51. Vankipuram, M.; McMahon, S.; Fleury, J. ReadySteady: App for accelerometer-based activity monitoring and wellness-motivation feedback system for older adults. In Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium. American Medical Informatics Association, Chicago, IL, USA, 3–7 November 2012; Volume 2012, p. 931. [Google Scholar]
  52. McMahon, S.; Vankipuram, M.; Hekler, E.B.; Fleury, J. Design and evaluation of theory-informed technology to augment a wellness motivation intervention. Transl. Behav. Med. 2014, 4, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Schließmann, D.; Nisser, M.; Schuld, C.; Gladow, T.; Derlien, S.; Heutehaus, L.; Weidner, N.; Smolenski, U.; Rupp, R. Trainer in a pocket-proof-of-concept of mobile, real-time, foot kinematics feedback for gait pattern normalization in individuals after stroke, incomplete spinal cord injury and elderly patients. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2018, 15, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Xu, J.; Bao, T.; Lee, U.H.; Kinnaird, C.; Carender, W.; Huang, Y.; Sienko, K.H.; Shull, P.B. Configurable, wearable sensing and vibrotactile feedback system for real-time postural balance and gait training: Proof-of-concept. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2017, 14, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zhang, Y.; Beenakker, K.G.; Butala, P.M.; Lin, C.C.; Little, T.D.; Maier, A.B.; Stijntjes, M.; Vartanian, R.; Wagenaar, R.C. Monitoring walking and cycling of middle-aged to older community dwellers using wireless wearable accelerometers. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, San Diego, CA, USA, 28 August – 1 September 2012; pp. 158–161. [Google Scholar]
  56. Dehzangi, O.; Zhao, Z.; Bidmeshki, M.M.; Biggan, J.; Ray, C.; Jafari, R. The impact of vibrotactile biofeedback on the excessive walking sway and the postural control in elderly. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Wireless Health, Baltimore, MD, USA, 4–6 November 2013; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  57. Demiris, G.; Chaudhuri, S.; Thompson, H.J. Older adults’ experience with a novel fall detection device. Telemed. -Health 2016, 22, 726–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Veeravelli, S.; Najafi, B.; Marin, I.; Blumenkron, F.; Smith, S.; Klotz, S.A. Exergaming in older people living with HIV improves balance, mobility and ameliorates some aspects of frailty. J. Vis. Exp. 2016, 116, e54275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Antos, S.A.; Danilovich, M.K.; Eisenstein, A.R.; Gordon, K.E.; Kording, K.P. Smartwatches Can Detect Walker and Cane Use in Older Adults. Innov. Aging 2019, 3, igz008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. España-Romero, V.; Golubic, R.; Martin, K.R.; Hardy, R.; Ekelund, U.; Kuh, D.; Wareham, N.J.; Cooper, R.; Brage, S.; NSHD Scientific and Data Collection Teams. Comparison of the EPIC Physical Activity Questionnaire with combined heart rate and movement sensing in a nationally representative sample of older British adults. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Iluz, T.; Gazit, E.; Herman, T.; Sprecher, E.; Brozgol, M.; Giladi, N.; Mirelman, A.; Hausdorff, J.M. Automated detection of missteps during community ambulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease: A new approach for quantifying fall risk in the community setting. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014, 11, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Isho, T.; Tashiro, H.; Usuda, S. Accelerometry-based gait characteristics evaluated using a smartphone and their association with fall risk in people with chronic stroke. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2015, 24, 1305–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Aziz, O.; Park, E.J.; Mori, G.; Robinovitch, S.N. Distinguishing the causes of falls in humans using an array of wearable tri-axial accelerometers. Gait Posture 2014, 39, 506–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lyons, E.J.; Swartz, M.C.; Lewis, Z.H.; Martinez, E.; Jennings, K. Feasibility and acceptability of a wearable technology physical activity intervention with telephone counseling for mid-aged and older adults: A randomized controlled pilot trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017, 5, e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Finkelstein, J.; Jeong, I.C. Feasibility of interactive biking exercise system for telemanagement in elderly. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 2013, 192, 642–646. [Google Scholar]
  66. Howcroft, J.; Kofman, J.; Lemaire, E.D. Feature selection for elderly faller classification based on wearable sensors. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2017, 14, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Joosen, P.; Piette, D.; Buekers, J.; Taelman, J.; Berckmans, D.; De Boever, P. A smartphone-based solution to monitor daily physical activity in a care home. J. Telemed. Telecare 2019, 25, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Vermeulen, J.; Neyens, J.C.; Spreeuwenberg, M.D.; van Rossum, E.; Sipers, W.; Habets, H.; Hewson, D.J.; De Witte, L.P. User-centered development and testing of a monitoring system that provides feedback regarding physical functioning to elderly people. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2013, 7, 843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Moufawad El Achkar, C.; Lenoble-Hoskovec, C.; Paraschiv-Ionescu, A.; Major, K.; Büla, C.; Aminian, K. Physical behavior in older persons during daily life: Insights from instrumented shoes. Sensors 2016, 16, 1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Roberts, L.M.; Jaeger, B.C.; Baptista, L.C.; Harper, S.A.; Gardner, A.K.; Jackson, E.A.; Pekmezi, D.; Sandesara, B.; Manini, T.M.; Anton, S.D.; et al. Wearable Technology To Reduce Sedentary Behavior And CVD Risk In Older Adults: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Interv. Aging 2019, 14, 1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Huisingh-Scheetz, M.J.; Kocherginsky, M.; Magett, E.; Rush, P.; Dale, W.; Waite, L. Relating wrist accelerometry measures to disability in older adults. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2016, 62, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gamecho, B.; Silva, H.; Guerreiro, J.; Gardeazabal, L.; Abascal, J. A context-aware application to increase elderly users compliance with physical rehabilitation exercises at home via animatronic biofeedback. J. Med. Syst. 2015, 39, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Toosizadeh, N.; Mohler, J.; Wendel, C.; Najafi, B. Influences of frailty syndrome on open-loop and closed-loop postural control strategy. Gerontology 2015, 61, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bao, T.; Carender, W.J.; Kinnaird, C.; Barone, V.J.; Peethambaran, G.; Whitney, S.L.; Kabeto, M.; Seidler, R.D.; Sienko, K.H. Effects of long-term balance training with vibrotactile sensory augmentation among community-dwelling healthy older adults: A randomized preliminary study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2018, 15, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Schwenk, M.; Sabbagh, M.; Lin, I.; Morgan, P.; Grewal, G.S.; Mohler, J.; Coon, D.W.; Najafi, B. Sensor-based balance training with motion feedback in people with mild cognitive impairment. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2016, 53, 945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Nakagawa, E.; Moriya, K.; Suwa, H.; Fujimoto, M.; Arakawa, Y.; Hatta, T.; Miwa, S.; Yasumoto, K. Investigating recognition accuracy improvement by adding user’s acceleration data to location and power consumption-based in-home activity recognition system. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing Networking and Services, Hiroshima, Japan, 28 November–1 December 2016; pp. 100–105. [Google Scholar]
  77. Fritz, H.; Tarraf, W.; Saleh, D.J.; Cutchin, M.P. Using a smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment protocol with community dwelling older African Americans. J. Gerontol. Ser. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2017, 72, 876–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Louza, J.; Rösel, C.; Gürkov, R.; Krause, E.; Ihler, F. Influence of cochlear implantation on postural control and risk of falls. Audiol. Neurotol. 2019, 24, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Gualtieri, L.; Rosenbluth, S.; Phillips, J. Can a free wearable activity tracker change behavior? The impact of trackers on adults in a physician-led wellness group. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2016, 5, e237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mate, K.; Abou-Sharkh, A.; Morais, J.; Mayo, N. Putting the best foot forward: Relationships between indicators of step quality and cadence in three gait vulnerable populations. NeuroRehabilitation 2019, 44, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jeong, J.N.; Kim, S.H.; Park, K.N. Relationship between objectively measured lifestyle factors and health factors in patients with knee osteoarthritis: The STROBE Study. Medicine 2019, 98, e16060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kimura, N.; Aso, Y.; Yabuuchi, K.; Ishibashi, M.; Hori, D.; Sasaki, Y.; Nakamichi, A.; Uesugi, S.; Fujioka, H.; Iwao, S.; et al. Modifiable lifestyle factors and cognitive function in older people: A cross-sectional observational study. Front. Neurol. 2019, 10, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hassan, L.; Swarbrick, C.; Sanders, C.; Parker, A.; Machin, M.; Tully, M.P.; Ainsworth, J. Tea, talk and technology: Patient and public involvement to improve connected health ‘wearables’ research in dementia. Res. Involv. Engagem. 2017, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Li, K.; Warren, S. A wireless reflectance pulse oximeter with digital baseline control for unfiltered photoplethysmograms. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 2011, 6, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rodrigues, D.F.; Horta, E.T.; Silva, B.M.; Guedes, F.D.; Rodrigues, J.J. A mobile healthcare solution for ambient assisted living environments. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom), Natal-RN, Brazil, 15–18 October 2014; pp. 170–175. [Google Scholar]
  86. Selvaraj, N. Long-term remote monitoring of vital signs using a wireless patch sensor. In Proceedings of the IEEE Healthcare Innovation Conference (HIC), Seattle, WA, USA, 8–10 October 2014; pp. 83–86. [Google Scholar]
  87. Chau, J.P.C.; Lee, D.T.F.; Yu, D.S.F.; Chow, A.Y.M.; Yu, W.C.; Chair, S.Y.; Lai, A.S.; Chick, Y.L. A feasibility study to investigate the acceptability and potential effectiveness of a telecare service for older people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2012, 81, 674–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Cornet, V.P.; Daley, C.N.; Srinivas, P.; Holden, R.J. User-centered evaluations with older adults: Testing the usability of a mobile health system for heart failure self-management. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2017, 61, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Portz, J.D.; Vehovec, A.; Dolansky, M.A.; Levin, J.B.; Bull, S.; Boxer, R. The development and acceptability of a mobile application for tracking symptoms of heart failure among older adults. Telemed. -Health 2018, 24, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Lim, S.; Kang, S.M.; Kim, K.M.; Moon, J.H.; Choi, S.H.; Hwang, H.; Jung, H.S.; Park, K.S.; Ryu, J.O.; Jang, H.C. Multifactorial intervention in diabetes care using real-time monitoring and tailored feedback in type 2 diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2016, 53, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mena, L.J.; Felix, V.G.; Ostos, R.; Gonzalez, J.A.; Cervantes, A.; Ochoa, A.; Ruiz, C.; Ramos, R.; Maestre, G.E. Mobile personal health system for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2013, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Batsis, J.A.; Naslund, J.A.; Gill, L.E.; Masutani, R.K.; Agarwal, N.; Bartels, S.J. Use of a wearable activity device in rural older obese adults: A pilot study. Gerontol. Geriatr. Med. 2016, 2, 2333721416678076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Merilahti, J.; Pärkkä, J.; Antila, K.; Paavilainen, P.; Mattila, E.; Malm, E.J.; Saarinen, A.; Korhonen, I. Compliance and technical feasibility of long-term health monitoring with wearable and ambient technologies. J. Telemed. Telecare 2009, 15, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Fanning, J.; Brooks, A.K.; Ip, E.; Nicklas, B.J.; Rejeski, W.J. A mobile health intervention to reduce pain and improve health (MORPH) in older adults with obesity: Protocol for the MORPH trial. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2018, 7, e128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Yasuda, K.; Saichi, K.; Iwata, H. Design and initial validity study of perception-empathy biofeedback system for gait training in older adults. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Miyazaki, Japan, 7–10 October 2018; pp. 1530–1534. [Google Scholar]
  96. Harte, R.; Quinlan, L.R.; Glynn, L.; Rodriguez-Molinero, A.; Scharf, T.; Carenas, C.; Reixach, E.; Garcia, J.; Carrabina, J.; ÓLaighin, G. A multi-stage human factors and comfort assessment of instrumented insoles designed for use in a connected health infrastructure. J. Pers. Med. 2015, 5, 487–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ma, C.Z.H.; Wan, A.H.P.; Wong, D.W.C.; Zheng, Y.P.; Lee, W.C.C. A vibrotactile and plantar force measurement-based biofeedback system: Paving the way towards wearable balance-improving devices. Sensors 2015, 15, 31709–31722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Pagan-Ortiz, M.E.; Goulet, P.; Kogelman, L.; Levkoff, S.E.; Weitzman, P.F. Feasibility of a Texting Intervention to Improve Medication Adherence Among Older HIV+ African Americans: A Mixed-Method Pilot Study. Gerontol. Geriatr. Med. 2019, 5, 2333721419855662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Bowen, P.G.; Clay, O.J.; Lee, L.T.; Browning, W.; Schoenberger, Y.M.; Martin, M.Y. Texting Older Sisters to Step: The TOSS Study. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2019, 41, 388–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Masumoto, K.; Yaguchi, T.; Matsuda, H.; Tani, H.; Tozuka, K.; Kondo, N.; Okada, S. Measurement and visualization of face-to-face interaction among community-dwelling older adults using wearable sensors. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2017, 17, 1752–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Njie-Carr, V.P.; Jones-Parker, H.; Massey, C.; Baker, D.; Nganga-Good, C. Leveraging community engagement to develop a mobile health application for older women with HIV infection. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal Nurs. 2018, 47, 833–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Dasgupta, D.; Reeves, K.G.; Chaudhry, B.; Duarte, M.; Chawla, N.V. eseniorcare: Technology for promoting well-being of older adults in independent living facilities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), New York, NY, USA, 4–7 June 2016; pp. 461–472. [Google Scholar]
  103. Gelonch, O.; Ribera, M.; Codern-Bové, N.; Ramos, S.; Quintana, M.; Chico, G.; Cerulla, N.; Lafarga, P.; Radeva, P.; Garolera, M. Acceptability of a lifelogging wearable camera in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: A mixed-method study. BMC Geriatr. 2019, 19, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Lopez-Samaniego, L.; Garcia-Zapirain, B.; Mendez-Zorrilla, A. Memory and accurate processing brain rehabilitation for the elderly: LEGO robot and iPad case study. Bio-Med Mater. Eng. 2014, 24, 3549–3556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Oh, S.J.; Seo, S.; Lee, J.H.; Song, M.J.; Shin, M.S. Effects of smartphone-based memory training for older adults with subjective memory complaints: A randomized controlled trial. Aging Ment. Health 2018, 22, 526–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Holden, R.J.; Campbell, N.L.; Abebe, E.; Clark, D.O.; Ferguson, D.; Bodke, K.; Boustani, M.A.; Callahan, C.M.; The Brain Health Patient Safety Laboratory. Usability and feasibility of consumer-facing technology to reduce unsafe medication use by older adults. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2020, 16, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Shima, K.; Tsuji, T.; Kandori, A.; Yokoe, M.; Sakoda, S. Measurement and evaluation of finger tapping movements using log-linearized Gaussian mixture networks. Sensors 2009, 9, 2187–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wilson, M.; Doyle, J.; McTaggart, G. Designing stress management interventions for older adults to improve wellbeing. In Proceedings of the British HCI Conference, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, UK, 13–17 July 2015; pp. 307–308. [Google Scholar]
  109. Lazarou, I.; Karakostas, A.; Stavropoulos, T.G.; Tsompanidis, T.; Meditskos, G.; Kompatsiaris, I.; Tsolaki, M. A novel and intelligent home monitoring system for care support of elders with cognitive impairment. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2016, 54, 1561–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Berndt, R.D.; Takenga, M.C.; Kuehn, S.; Preik, P.; Dubbermann, D.; Juenger, M. Development of a mobile teledermatology system. Telemed. -Health 2012, 18, 668–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Danilovich, M.K.; Diaz, L.; Saberbein, G.; Healey, W.E.; Huber, G.; Corcos, D.M. Design and development of a mobile exercise application for home care aides and older adult medicaid home and community-based clients. Home Health Care Serv. Q. 2017, 36, 196–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. De Backere, F.; Van den Bergh, J.; Coppers, S.; Elprama, S.; Nelis, J.; Verstichel, S.; Jacobs, A.; Coninx, K.; Ongenae, F.; De Turck, F. Social-aware event handling within the FallRisk project. Methods Inf. Med. 2017, 56, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  113. Adams, A.T.; Murnane, E.L.; Adams, P.; Elfenbein, M.; Chang, P.F.; Sannon, S.; Gay, G.; Choudhury, T. Keppi: A tangible user interface for self-reporting pain. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  114. Matson, T.E.; Anderson, M.L.; Renz, A.D.; Greenwood-Hickman, M.A.; McClure, J.B.; Rosenberg, D.E. Changes in Self-Reported Health and Psychosocial Outcomes in Older Adults Enrolled in Sedentary Behavior Intervention Study. Am. J. Health Promot. 2019, 33, 1053–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Burridge, J.H.; Lee, A.C.W.; Turk, R.; Stokes, M.; Whitall, J.; Vaidyanathan, R.; Clatworthy, P.; Hughes, A.M.; Meagher, C.; Franco, E.; et al. Telehealth, wearable sensors, and the internet: Will they improve stroke outcomes through increased intensity of therapy, motivation, and adherence to rehabilitation programs? J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 2017, 41, S32–S38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Kuerbis, A.; Mulliken, A.; Muench, F.; Moore, A.A.; Gardner, D. Older adults and mobile technology: Factors that enhance and inhibit utilization in the context of behavioral health. Ment. Health Addict. Res. 2017, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Bartels, S.L.; van Knippenberg, R.J.; Dassen, F.C.; Asaba, E.; Patomella, A.H.; Malinowsky, C.; Verhey, F.R.; de Vugt, M.E. A narrative synthesis systematic review of digital self-monitoring interventions for middle-aged and older adults. Internet Interv. 2019, 18, 100283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Prince, S.A.; Cardilli, L.; Reed, J.L.; Saunders, T.J.; Kite, C.; Douillette, K.; Fournier, K.; Buckley, J.P. A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kanis, M.; Robben, S.; Kröse, B. How Are You Doing? Enabling Older Adults to Enrich Sensor Data with Subjective Input. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Human Behavior Understanding (HBU), Osaka, Japan, 8 September 2015; pp. 39–51. [Google Scholar]
  120. Le, T.; Reeder, B.; Thompson, H.; Demiris, G. Health Providers’ Perceptions of Novel Approaches to Visualizing Integrated Health Information. Methods Inf. Med. 2013, 52, 250–258. [Google Scholar]
  121. Hawthorn, D. Possible implications of aging for interface designers. Interact. Comput. 2000, 12, 507–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Chang, F.; Östlund, B. Perspectives of older adults and informal caregivers on information visualization for smart home monitoring systems: A critical review. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), Florence, Italy, 26–30 August 2018; pp. 681–690. [Google Scholar]
  123. Zeagler, C. Where to wear it: Functional, technical, and social considerations in on-body location for wearable technology 20 years of designing for wearability. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC’17), Maui, HI, USA, 11–15 September 2017; pp. 150–157. [Google Scholar]
  124. Fang, Y.M.; Chang, C.C. Users’ psychological perception and perceived readability of wearable devices for elderly people. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2016, 35, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flow-chart of the study selection process.
Figure 1. Flow-chart of the study selection process.
Sensors 20 04348 g001
Figure 2. Frequency of publications per year.
Figure 2. Frequency of publications per year.
Sensors 20 04348 g002
Table 1. Search keywords aligned to PICO.
Table 1. Search keywords aligned to PICO.
VariableDescriptionSearch Keywords
PopulationOlder adults(older OR senior OR elder *)
AND
InterventionMobile technology for health
information
(mobile OR wearable OR sensor) AND health *
AND
OutcomeSelf-reporting and displaying(feedback OR visualization OR self-report OR input)
Table 2. Data used for health monitoring of older adults.
Table 2. Data used for health monitoring of older adults.
StudiesCount
Type of data
    Acceleration [2,4,6,10,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83]58
    Physiological parameters [5,7,11,65,66,67,68,69,70,79,81,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]26
    Process indicators [98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107]10
    Sleep [5,71,79,82,83,94,108,109]8
    Emotions [12,20,110,111,112]5
    Position [75,76,77,78]4
    Pain [20,111,112,113]4
    Time [106,109,114,115]4
Table 3. Type, Placement and features for mobile technology used to monitor the health of older adults.
Table 3. Type, Placement and features for mobile technology used to monitor the health of older adults.
StudiesCount
Type of technology
    Sensor [4,5,6,10,12,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,45,46,47,48,50,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,60,61,62,63,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,75,76,78,79,80,82,84,85,86,87,90,91,95,96,97,100,103,107,108,115]60
    Smartphone [7,10,11,30,44,45,49,51,52,59,62,67,68,74,76,77,85,87,98,99,101,105,106,112]24
    Smart bracelet [2,20,59,70,76,81,82,83,85,92,93,94,109,114]14
    Tablet [31,32,33,64,88,89,102,104,108,110,111,115]12
    Tangible [113]1
Technology placement
    Hand [7,10,11,30,31,32,33,44,45,49,51,52,53,64,68,74,76,77,85,87,88,89,90,91,98,99,101,102,104,105,106,108,110,111,112,113,115]37
    Wrist [2,4,6,12,20,37,59,65,70,71,72,76,79,81,82,83,84,85,91,93,94,109,114]23
    Waist [5,41,48,50,54,57,59,63,66,67,70,73,83,87,90,93,95]17
    Pocket [39,40,42,51,54,57,59,68,79,88,91,92,110,112]14
    Foot [6,45,63,66,69,80,95,96,97]9
    Chest [46,48,56,60,63,65,67,85,86]9
    Back [6,34,47,58,61,62,69,75,97]9
    Ankle [6,38,53,55,65,73]6
    Neck [35,43,44,74,100,103]6
    Legs [48,58,64,66,75]5
    Finger [84,87,107]3
    Ear [78,84]2
Table 4. Features of self-reporting for older adults
Table 4. Features of self-reporting for older adults
Self-reportStudiesHealth Data
   On device [7,10,11,20,30,33,35,47,65,74,76,77,86,87,88,89,90,93,94,96,102,104,106,108,110,111,112,113,115]Sleep quality, pain level, comfort, activity time, breathing rate, glucose level, stress level, activities attainment, pulses, weight, shortness of breath, feeling sad, vital signals, mood level, medication adherence, math tasks, falling number, fitness progress.
    On paper [5,6,35,36,57,60,62,64,70,71,74,81,82,83,93,94,98,99,103,105,109,114]Physical activities, domestic tasks, physical activities, food quantity, activity energy, depression, memory, feeding speed, sleep quality, working time, fatigue level, perceived effort, talk time, domestic activities, free time, falling number, text message reply.
Table 5. The outcome of technology types, grouped by self-reporting and data visualization.
Table 5. The outcome of technology types, grouped by self-reporting and data visualization.
Type of TechnologySelf-Report on DeviceVisualization on Device
Smartphone [7,11,30,74,80,106,112] [7,11,30,44,49,51,74,77,98,99,105,106,112]
Sensors [35,47,65,86,90,96] [4,34,50,53,56,65,79,90,91,95,107]
Smart bracelet [20,93,94] [2,20,81,83,92,94,109,114]
Tablet [33,88,89,102,104,110,111] [31,32,33,64,88,89,102,104,110,111]
Tangible [113]NA
Sensor + Smartphone [10,87] [10,45,52,62,68,87]
Smart bracelet + SensorNA [70]
Tablet + Sensor [108,115] [108,115]
Smart bracelet + SmartphoneNA [59]
Smart bracelet + Sensor + Smartphone [76] [76,85]
Table 6. Visualization of older adults’ health data—specifications, studies, and count.
Table 6. Visualization of older adults’ health data—specifications, studies, and count.
VisualizationSpecificsStudiesCount
On device  [2,4,7,10,11,20,30,31,32,33,34,44,45,49,50,51,52,53,56,59,62,64,65,68,70,74,76,77,79,81,83,85,87,88,89,90,91,92,94,95,98,99,102,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,114,115]54
Is it for older adults? [2,4,7,10,11,20,30,31,32,33,34,45,49,50,51,52,53,56,59,64,65,68,70,74,76,77,79,81,83,87,88,89,90,91,92,94,95,98,99,102,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,114,115]51
Was it evaluated? [4,7,11,30,31,33,51,52,68,89,102,106]12
External  [5,6,12,35,36,38,39,40,41,42,43,47,48,55,57,58,61,63,67,69,72,73,75,78,80,82,84,86,93,96,97,100,103,113]34
Is it for older adults? [35,58,72,113]4
Was it evaluated? [72,113]2
Back to TopTop