Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39367429›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Older adults' preferences in the utilization of digital health and social services: a qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions.

Elina Laukka, Sanna Lakoma, Marja Harjumaa, Suvi Hiltunen, Henna Härkönen, Miia Jansson, Riikka-Leena Leskelä, Susanna Martikainen, Paula Pennanen, Anastasiya Verho and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

11 authors.

Elina LaukkaFaculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, P.O. BOX 00020, Helsinki, 00014, Finland. elina.laukka@helsinki.fi.
Sanna LakomaFaculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, P.O. BOX 00020, Helsinki, 00014, Finland.
Marja HarjumaaNordic Healthcare Group, Vattuniemenranta 2, Helsinki, 00210, Finland.
Suvi HiltunenUnion for Senior Services, Helsinki, 00500, Finland.
Henna HärkönenResearch Unit of Health Sciences and Technology (HST), University of Oulu, P.O. BOX 8000, Oulu, FI-90014, Finland.
Miia JanssonResearch Unit of Health Sciences and Technology (HST), University of Oulu, P.O. BOX 8000, Oulu, FI-90014, Finland.
Riikka-Leena LeskeläNordic Healthcare Group, Vattuniemenranta 2, Helsinki, 00210, Finland.
Susanna MartikainenNordic Healthcare Group, Vattuniemenranta 2, Helsinki, 00210, Finland.
Paula PennanenNordic Healthcare Group, Vattuniemenranta 2, Helsinki, 00210, Finland.
Anastasiya VerhoFaculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, P.O. BOX 00020, Helsinki, 00014, Finland.
Paulus TorkkiFaculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, P.O. BOX 00020, Helsinki, 00014, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile digital health and social services offer promising solutions, they often overlook the perspectives and needs of older adults. This study aims to comprehensively investigate the preferences of older adults regarding the use and development of digital health and social services.

methodsThe survey spanned from 19 March to 31 March 2023. The study population comprised 1100 Finnish individuals aged 75 and over from across Finland. The study used qualitative inductive content analysis to examine the open-ended responses obtained in the survey.

resultsWe identified eight main categories for the older adults' preferences: usability, service design, and security; training, support, instructions, and information; flexibility of compatible devices; understandable language and interpretation of laboratory results; available and accessible services; desired functionalities; delivery of information for viewing, and personalization.

conclusionsOlder adults' involvement in digital services' strategy development is crucial, emphasizing value co-creation and segmentation while avoiding value co-destruction. Segmenting users and understanding their needs aids in customizing services, improving healthcare provision. Further research should assess the impact of segmentation-based training and digital device provision on older adults' adoption of digital health and social services.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceQualitative ResearchSocial WorkAgedAged, 80 and overDigital HealthDigital TechnologyFemaleFinlandHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineDelivery of healthcareDigital technologyElderlySocial welfareTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID39367429
PMCPMC11451244

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.