Are older adults considered in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mobile health research? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of mobile health (mHealth) for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is rapidly growing and may help address the complex respiratory care needs of our ageing population. However, little is currently known about how airways mHealth is developed and used among older adults (≥65 years). OBJECTIVE: To identify if and how older adults with asthma and COPD have been incorporated across the mHealth research cycle. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials for studies pertaining to the development or evaluation of asthma and COPD mHealth for adults published after 2010. Study, participant and mHealth details, including any considerations of older age, were extracted, synthesised and charted. RESULTS: A total of 334 studies of 191 mHealth tools were identified. Adults ≥65 years old were included in 33.3% of asthma mHealth studies and 85.3% of COPD studies. Discussions of older age focused on barriers to technology use. Methodologic and/or analytic considerations of older age were mostly absent throughout the research cycle. Among the 28 instances quantitative age-related analyses were detailed, 12 described positive mHealth use and satisfaction outcomes in older adults versus negative or equivocal outcomes. CONCLUSION: We identified an overall lack of consideration for older age throughout the airways mHealth research cycle, even among COPD mHealth studies that predominantly included older adults. We also found a contrast between the perceptions of how older age might negatively influence mHealth use and available quantitative evaluations. Future airways mHealth research must better integrate the needs and concerns of older adults.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".