Evidence mapPaperPMID 37733401Full record

SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2023

Design Guidelines of Mobile Apps for Older Adults: Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis.

Miguel Gomez-Hernandez, Xavier Ferre, Cristian Moral, Elena Villalba-Mora

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Miguel Gomez-HernandezCenter for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4316-3550
Xavier FerreCenter for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3474-9784
Cristian MoralCenter for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8429-8822
Elena Villalba-MoraCenter for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6043-6322

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile apps are fundamental tools in today's society for practical and social endeavors. However, these technologies are often not usable for older users. Given the increased use of mobile apps by this group of users and the impact that certain services may have on their quality of life, such as mobile health, personal finance, or online administrative procedures, a clear set of guidelines for mobile app designers is needed. Existing recommendations for older adults focus on investigations with certain groups of older adults or have not been extracted from experimental results.

objectiveIn this research work, we systematically reviewed the scientific literature that provided recommendations for the design of mobile apps based on usability testing with older adults and organized such recommendations into a meaningful set of design guidelines.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review of journal and conference articles from 2010 to 2021. We included articles that carried out usability tests with populations aged >60 years and presented transferable guidelines on mobile software design, resulting in a final set of 40 articles. We then carried out a thematic analysis with 3 rounds of analysis to provide meaning to an otherwise diverse set of recommendations. At this stage, we discarded recommendations that were made by just 1 article, were based on a specific mobile app and were therefore nontransferrable, were based on other authors' literature (as opposed to recommendations based on the results of usability tests), or were not sufficiently argued. With the remaining recommendations, we identified commonalities, wrote a faithful statement for each guideline, used a common language for the entire set, and organized the guidelines into categories, thereby giving shape to an otherwise diverse set of recommendations.

resultsAmong the 27 resulting guidelines, the rules Simplify and Increase the size and distance between interactive controls were transversal and of the greatest significance. The rest of the guidelines were divided into 5 categories (Help & Training, Navigation, Visual Design, Cognitive Load, and Interaction) and consequent subcategories in Visual Design (Layout, Icons, and Appearance) and Interaction (Input and Output). The recommendations were structured, explained in detail, and illustrated with applied examples extracted from the selected studies, where appropriate. We discussed the design implications of applying these guidelines, contextualized with relevant studies. We also discussed the limitations of the approach followed, stressing the need for further experimentation to gain a better understanding of how older adults use mobile apps and how to better design such apps with these users in mind.

conclusionsThe compiled guidelines support the design of mobile apps that cater to the needs of older adults because they are based on the results of actual usability tests with users aged >60 years.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAgedHumansLanguageQuality of LifeResearch DesignSoftware Designdesigndesign recommendationsmobile appmobile phoneolder adultsolder userquality of lifesmartphonesoftwaretablettooltrainingusability testinguser experience designUX designvisual design

Identifiers

PMID37733401
PMCPMC10557006

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.