Evidence mapPaperPMID 41855421Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2026

Identifying and Prioritizing Age-Friendly Design Principles and Guidelines for Developing Transportation Planning E-Tools: Scoping Review.

Sara Bahrampoor Givi, Mireille Gagnon-Roy, Véronique Provencher

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Sara Bahrampoor GiviSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, QC, J1H 5N4, Canada, 1 8198218000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8725-4067
Mireille Gagnon-RoySchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, QC, J1H 5N4, Canada, 1 8198218000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9668-7289
Véronique ProvencherSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, QC, J1H 5N4, Canada, 1 8198218000.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8211-7135

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Older adults often face mobility challenges and usability barriers when navigating transportation options due to age-related physical, cognitive, and sensory changes. While transportation planning e-tools can support their independence, most are not designed for their specific needs. There is a lack of comprehensive, age-friendly usability design principles tailored to this context. Objective: This study aims to identify, synthesize, and prioritize the most relevant age-friendly usability design principles and guidelines for developing transportation planning e-tools that are tailored to the needs of older adults. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework, enhanced by guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) standards. The literature search was performed across the following six scientific databases: MEDLINE (PubMed and National Center for Biotechnology Information), AgeLine (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library (Wiley Online Library), Scopus (Elsevier), IEEE Xplore, and TRID (Transportation Research Board), and was supplemented by gray literature identified through Google Scholar and Google Search, covering the period from January 2013 to April 2025. To guide the analysis, 4 foundational usability frameworks by Nielsen; Shneiderman and Plaisant; Gerhardt-Powals; and Weinschenk and Barker were used to inductively derive generic principles that structured the classification of age-friendly guidelines. This process resulted in the organization of extracted guidelines into 10 core usability principles. The analytic hierarchy process was applied by a single expert to rank the principles based on expert pairwise comparisons and their frequency of reference in literature. Results: The study identified 31 relevant studies. From these, 500 age-friendly guidelines were refined into 68 actionable guidelines across 10 usability principles: visual clarity, structure and navigation, ease of use, information, minimizing memory load, feedback, accessibility, consistency, simplicity, and control. The analytic hierarchy process ranked visual clarity (36.4%), structure and navigation (22.1%), and ease of use (12.5%) as the top 3 age-friendly design priorities. Conclusions: This study offers an evidence-based foundation for developing transportation planning e-tools that promote older adults' autonomy and digital inclusion, with prioritized guidelines applicable to transportation planning e-tools and to the broader field of age-friendly digital design. Ongoing updates and active user involvement are essential to ensure their sustained usability and long-term relevance.

Indexed as

TransportationAgedGuidelines as TopicHumanse-toolsguidelinesolder adultsreviewtransportationusability

Identifiers

PMID41855421
PMCPMC13002004

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.