Usability of Videoconferencing for Physical Exercise Interventions in Older Adults: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Videoconference combines the convenience of home-based physical exercise (PE) with group interaction and supervision of exercise in the community and could be useful for facilitating PE practice among older adults. Objective: This scoping review aims to assess the evidence regarding the usability of videoconferencing technologies. Specifically, it explores whether tele-exercise solutions based on videoconferencing are usable for older adults and professionals, and how the heterogeneity of evaluation tools influences the generalization of results. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in databases Pubmed-Ovid Medline, Science Direct, Scopus, and CINAHL from January 2000 to March 2025 for identifying articles on measures of usability (ie, effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of technology). Results: A total of 14 studies out of 2506 unique records were included. The results showed that videoconferencing strategies can effectively deliver synchronous exercise interventions. However, their effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction vary depending on the technological medium used. Despite widespread use among older adults, there is a notable gap in studies evaluating usability, particularly regarding remote PE interventions. Conclusions: The review highlights that videoconferencing can be an effective tool for delivering synchronous exercise interventions to older adults. However, the effectiveness and user satisfaction depend on the technology used and the individual's characteristics. Further studies using standardized evaluation tools are needed to better assess usability. These findings underscore the importance of continued research to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of videoconferencing technologies for exercise interventions and to develop customized solutions to optimize the efficacy of these interventions for this population.
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 | 0.029 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".