Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40896236›Full record

ArticleHealth and technology2025

Task effectiveness, usability, and acceptability of mHealth technologies among older adults at risk for cardiovascular disease: a feasibility study.

Andrew Thomas Reyes, Dion Candelaria, Reimund Serafica, Janett A Hildebrand, Marysol Cacciata, Axel Santa Maria, Jung-Ah Lee, Anna Strömberg, Lorraine S Evangelista

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

9 authors.

Andrew Thomas ReyesSchool of Nursing, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2875-1124
Dion CandelariaSusan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Reimund SeraficaSchool of Nursing, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Janett A HildebrandDepartment of Nursing, School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Marysol CacciataVeterans Affairs Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA.
Axel Santa MariaSue & Bill Gross School of Nursing, Assistant Clinical Research Coordinator, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Jung-Ah LeeSue & Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Anna StrömbergDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Department of Cardiology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Lorraine S EvangelistaLouise Herrington School of Nursing, Baylor University, TXDallas, USA.

Funding

NIA NIH HHS R21 AG053162
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: New research shows the benefits of mobile health (mHealth) interventions for older adults. However, older adults adopt digital technology less than younger ones. This study measures the task effectiveness, perceived usability, and acceptability of a mHealth intervention (i.e., Methods: Participants used the Results: Thirty older adults (mean age 66.6 ± 5.9 years, 60% female, 60% married, 50% Asian, 37% White, and 13% Hispanic) participated in this sub-analysis. Participants were able to complete the assigned tasks efficiently. The usability satisfaction assessment suggests a high level of satisfaction. The participants responded positively to Conclusions: Our findings show that

Indexed as

Cardiovascular diseasemHealthOlder adultsTechnology acceptanceUsability

Identifiers

PMID40896236
PMCPMC12392979

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.