User-Dependent Usability and Feasibility of a Swallowing Training mHealth App for Older Adults: Mixed Methods Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Swallowing difficulties (ie, dysphagia) are common among older adults, with a 13% to 54% prevalence. Adequate interventions to improve the swallowing function of older adults would reduce morbidity and enhance health-related quality of life outcomes. Mobile health (mHealth) apps may help alleviate dysphagia symptoms by providing programs that maximize the intensity and frequency of training without requiring high costs or regular clinic visits. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to assess the usability of swallowing training apps by quantitatively and qualitatively evaluating older adults' self-reported data, taking into consideration their educational levels and exposure to mobile technology. We conducted surveys and brief interviews while the participants used a swallowing intervention app we developed. We subsequently identified and resolved individual-specific usability issues to improve future implementation of the app protocol for older persons with swallowing difficulties. METHODS: A total of 11 participants (10 women, 91%; mean age 75.7 years, SD 3.93) from two district-run senior welfare centers took part in this study. The participants were divided into a high-potential group and a low-potential group based on their total number of years of education and smart device usage. To investigate the usability of the app twice (ie, in the second week of the intervention and the postintervention stage), we used mixed methods consisting of both quantitative approaches, namely the System Usability Scale (SUS) and modified Computer Self-Efficacy Scale (mCSES) surveys, and qualitative approaches (ie, interviews). RESULTS: The quantitative results of the SUS and mCSES surveys revealed that the high-potential group was more inclined to adopt and learn new technology than the low-potential group. Specifically, within the high-potential group, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated that the postintervention mCSES scores (median 65.50) were significantly higher than those in the second week of intervention (median 54.00; z=-2.023, P=.04). Additionally, the usability scores in the low-potential group were within the "marginal acceptability" range even after completion of an 8-week intervention program. Qualitative analyses via semi-structured interviews yielded promising outcomes regarding app acceptability, training program utilization, emotional responses, and learning experience. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this usability and feasibility study is the first report of a swallowing training app designed to improve the swallowing function of older adults. Future research should consider several issues, such as user characteristics, pretraining education, and the intensity and innate characteristics of the intervention program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".