MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117240379 · doi:10.2196/70319

Older Adults’ Experiences Navigating Setup of Digital Health Technology: Implementation Report

2025· article· en· W7117240379 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Brady, Rachel McCloud, Erin Higgins, Aishwarya Mahesh, Keith LeJeune, Jon Black, Anil Kumar Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital healthmHealthHealth careeHealthTelemedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digital health and connected technologies may support better health outcomes among older adults, including those with multiple chronic conditions or low engagement in health behaviors. However, initial experiences with technology, including during unboxing, setup, and first use, can influence emotional reactions and perceptions and can ultimately determine sustained, meaningful use. Older adults with low technology experience or poor health may be particularly vulnerable to frustration, stress, or abandonment of devices when early interactions are negative. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this implementation study was to closely observe the initial engagements with a telehealth treatment app and connected blood pressure monitor (BPM) among a group of older adults with low prior technology use and reported low health behavior engagement. The goal was to identify setup "pain points" that may influence initial impressions and intention to use the technology over time. METHODS: A total of 24 older adults (aged ≥65 years) were recruited for a 4-week trial of a telehealth app. Participants were provided with a box containing a tablet preloaded with the app, paper instructions, and a BPM and cuff. Researchers first conducted in-home ethnographic interviews with participants to observe the unboxing and setup process, documenting experiences with reading instructions, using the BPM, and engaging with customer support. Weekly check-in calls and a final exit interview captured ongoing experiences and likelihood of continued use. Interview recordings were transcribed and independently coded, guided by the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. RESULTS: Most of the sample were White (20/24, 83%) and female (14/24, 58%). Negative experiences with the app's customer support were the top challenge for participants, with representatives providing confusing steps or conflicting terminology. Other common challenges were understanding instructions, connecting to Bluetooth, and correctly using the BPM. While 67% (16/24) of the participants indicated that they were likely or very likely to continue to use the app after the study ended at the end of week 1, this number dropped to 54% (13/24) by the end of the 4 weeks. Participants who reported lower technology self-efficacy at the beginning of the study also experienced frustration, anxiety, and embarrassment as friction with the setup process continued. CONCLUSIONS: First impressions of digital health apps play a critical role in influencing older adults' emotions and perceptions regarding the technology and may impact the likelihood of longer-term engagement. Those with lower technology self-efficacy are particularly susceptible to experiencing negative emotions such as frustration, stress, or shame. Mobile health apps and interventions targeting older adults should incorporate simplified instructions with clear, consistent terminology and well-trained customer support staff to improve the onboarding experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.455 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207