User Experience of Older Adults With an Age-Friendly Transportation Planning E-Tool: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Aging is associated with various challenges, especially concerning mobility. Transportation planning e-tools are currently available to provide older adults with real-time travel information and help them choose trip options. However, many older adults find them challenging to use, as they are not tailored to their specific needs, such as lack of accessibility to the different means of transportation. It is necessary to identify knowledge gaps about design based on older adults' experience using transportation planning e-tools. Objective: This study aims to identify knowledge gaps regarding the user experience design and its evaluation for older adults using transportation planning e-tools. Methods: A scoping review of the scientific literature was conducted, based on Arksey and O'Malley's guidelines. The search covers sources published in English from January 2002 to October 2022 through 7 scientific databases, including MEDLINE, AgeLine, CINAHL, SCOPUS, ProQuest, IEEE Explore, and TRID (Transportation Research International Documentation), and was updated in October 2023. Data selection and extraction were performed by the first author and were co-validated by 2 co-authors. The identified sources were analyzed based on source characteristics (authors, year of publication, title of the article, source of article, country, and context of the studies), the purpose of the studies (objectives and study orientation), and the mapping of the methodology and evaluation of user experience (design approach, setting, type of data collection and analysis, type of usability evaluation, and sample size). Both descriptive-analytical methods and thematic analysis were used to analyze the categorized data. Results: Overall, 1905 sources were identified through databases, and 40 sources were selected for full-text analysis. Data analysis revealed in recent years that there has been significant growth in e-tools designed for older adults, but only 2 studies were related to the field of transportation. In total, 12 studies aimed to evaluate user experience, and 22 studies focused on a user-centered design approach. Most of these studies (n=31) were carried out in a laboratory setting, using summative usability evaluation (user-based testing). The System Usability Scale (SUS) was the most prevalent tool (15 studies) to measure user efficiency and satisfaction. However, no studies have been found that specifically aim to improve the mobility experience of older adults using an age-friendly transportation planning e-tool in a real-life context. Conclusions: There is a lack of studies assessing older adults' experience when using transportation planning e-tools in real-life situations. To bridge this gap, a participatory approach is necessary to better consider the needs of older adults in a real-life context and create age-friendly design guidelines for the development of transportation planning e-tools. This will not only enhance their user experience in trip planning but also promote their social engagement by improving their mobility.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,056 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,016 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».