Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41110133›Full record

SynthesisAge and ageing2025

Development and evaluation of online medication support tools for older people: a systematic review.

Temitope Esther Afolabi, Aili Langford, Sarah N Hilmer, Christopher Etherton-Beer, Arpita Das, Kevin Winardi, Mouna Sawan, Lisa Kouladjian O'Donnell

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Age and ageing, 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

8 authors.

Temitope Esther AfolabiFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Science Road, Camperdown, Sydney, New South Wales 2050, Australia.ORCID 0009-0001-0557-2337
Aili LangfordSchool of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarah N HilmerKolling Institute of Medical Research, Clinical Pharmacology and Ageing, St Leonards, New South Wales 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5970-1501
Christopher Etherton-BeerThe University of Western Australia, School of Medicine, 35 Stirling Hwy, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia.
Arpita DasKolling Institute of Medical Research, Clinical Pharmacology and Ageing, St Leonards, New South Wales 2065, Australia.
Kevin WinardiKolling Institute of Medical Research, Clinical Pharmacology and Ageing, St Leonards, New South Wales 2065, Australia.
Mouna SawanSchool of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0565-3524
Lisa Kouladjian O'DonnellSchool of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

Australian Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Dementia Ageing and Aged Care Mission 2016045Australian Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Dementia Ageing and Aged Care Mission 2032639National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator 2025289Penney Ageing Research Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuccess of online medication support tools is contingent on how well they are designed and address the needs of users, especially older people.

objectiveTo characterise existing online medication support tools for older people and describe their development and evaluation.

methodsThis systematic review was undertaken following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched from inception to October 2024 for studies describing the development and/or evaluation of online medication support tools for older people aged ≥65 years, or their informal caregivers. The mixed-methods appraisal tool was used for quality assessment. Extracted data were analysed descriptively.

resultsA total of 1621 studies were identified, and 29 studies met the inclusion criteria. Over 80% (n = 21) of the tools were mobile health apps or websites. The most common development approach involved user-centred design methodologies (comprising user needs assessments, focus groups, interviews and user experience workshops). Usability testing using questionnaires and surveys (n = 13 tools) were the most common evaluation techniques followed by think-aloud protocol (n = 9 tools), interviews and focus groups (n = 9 tools). Findings across 22 studies suggest that user satisfaction of the developed online tools was high. The remaining seven studies did not measure usability of the final prototype or explicitly report on usability.

conclusionFindings reveal heterogeneity in the methods used to develop and evaluate online tools for older people. Overall, all methodologies were feasible and led to the development of tools that demonstrated good to excellent levels of usability. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42024483579. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024483579.

Indexed as

InternetMobile ApplicationsAgedAged, 80 and overHumanscaregivershealth information technologyolder peopleonline medication toolssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41110133
PMCPMC12535762

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.