Decoding the Influence of eHealth on Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in Older Adults: Qualitative Analysis of Self-Determination Through the Motivational Technology Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults adopt and use eHealth systems to build autonomy, competence, and relatedness and engage in healthy behaviors. The motivational technology model posits that technology features, such as those on websites, smart displays, and mobile phones, must allow for navigability, interactivity, and customizability, which spur feelings of self-determination and intrinsic motivation. We studied ElderTree, an online system for older adults that provides on-demand videos of healthy living content, self-monitoring, and weekly researcher-hosted video meetings. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand the theoretical crossover between the motivational technology model and self-determination theory using features of ElderTree to understand the usability of the technology and how it may support older adults' autonomy, competence, and relatedness. METHODS: Drawing participants from a randomized controlled trial of a mobile health app for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, we conducted qualitative interviews with 22 older adults about their use of the app; the interviews were coded using qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Older adults did find that features within ElderTree such as content available on demand, good navigation, and weekly researcher-led video calls supported feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively. Individual differences such as a background using computers also influenced participants' experiences with the smart displays. CONCLUSIONS: Participants confirmed the features that increased internal motivation, such as interactivity correlating with feelings of relatedness, but they also found other ways to support autonomous health behavior change beyond narrow views of navigability, interactivity, and customization.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".