Despite their considerable potential to address health and cognitive challenges, mobile and wearable health devices remain underutilized by older adults compared to other smart products, suggesting skeptical attitudes toward these health devices in older adults. Using an online scenario-based survey describing hypothetical individuals with health vulnerabilities, we examined the attitudes of middle-aged and older adults (N = 737) toward mobile and wearable devices for (1) predicting cognitive decline, (2) suggesting health behaviors, and (3) diagnosing diseases. Our results showed that the presence of health vulnerability was associated with higher perceived usefulness, lower privacy concerns, and greater intention to adopt these devices. Additionally, technological readiness, experiences, and various demographic factors influence attitudes, highlighting the complex structure shaping attitudinal barriers against adoption of these devices. These results emphasize the need for more tailored market segmentation and strategies to enhance the adoption of health-related gerotechnologies while addressing privacy concerns.
AcilarA.SæbøØ. (2023). Towards understanding the gender digital divide: A systematic literature review. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 72(3), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-09-2021-0147
2.
AlbahriA. S.AlwanJ. K.TahaZ. K.IsmailS. F.HamidR. A.ZaidanA. A.AlbahriO. S.ZaidanB. B.AlamoodiA. H.AlsalemM. A. (2021). IoT-based telemedicine for disease prevention and health promotion: State-of-the-art. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 173, 102873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102873
3.
BeachS. R.SchulzR.DownsJ.MatthewsJ.BarronB.SeelmanK. (2009). Disability, age, and informational privacy attitudes in quality of life technology applications: Results from a national web survey. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), 2(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/1525840.1525846
4.
BoiseL.WildK.MattekN.RuhlM.DodgeH. H.KayeJ. (2013). Willingness of older adults to share data and privacy concerns after exposure to unobtrusive in-home monitoring. Gerontechnology: International Journal on the Fundamental Aspects of Technology to Serve the Ageing Society, 11(3), 428–435. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2013.11.3.001.00
5.
ButtonM.ShepherdD.HawkinsC.TapleyJ. (2024). Fear and phoning: Telephones, fraud, and older adults in the UK. International Review of Victimology, 31(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580241254399
6.
Census and Statistics Department. (2024). Thematic household survey report report No. 80: Internet and personal computer penetration.
7.
ChampionV. L.SkinnerC. S. (2008). The health belief model. In GlanzK.RimerB. K.ViswanathK. (Eds.),Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 45–65). Jossey-Bass.
8.
ChandrasekaranR.KatthulaV.MoustakasE. (2020). Patterns of use and key predictors for the use of wearable health care devices by US adults: Insights from a national survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(10), Article e22443. https://doi.org/10.2196/22443
9.
ChandrasekaranR.KatthulaV.MoustakasE. (2021). Too old for technology? Use of wearable healthcare devices by older adults and their willingness to share health data with providers. Health Informatics Journal, 27(4), 14604582211058073. https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582211058073
10.
ChenK.ChanA. H. S. (2014). Gerontechnology acceptance by elderly Hong Kong Chinese: A senior technology acceptance model (STAM). ERGONOMICS, 57(5), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.895855
11.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
12.
DeguchiN.OsukaY.KojimaN.MotokawaK.IwasakiM.InagakiH.MiyamaeF.OkamuraT.HiranoH.AwataS.SasaiH. (2024). Sex-specific factors associated with acceptance of smartwatches among urban older adults: The itabashi longitudinal study on aging. Frontiers in Public Health, 12(2024), 1261275. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1261275
13.
DongL.QiaoX.TianX.LiuN.JinY.SiH.WangC. (2018). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the frail scale in Chinese community-dwelling older adults. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 19(1), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2017.06.011
14.
FarivarS.AbouzahraM.GhasemaghaeiM. (2020). Wearable device adoption among older adults: A mixed-methods study. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102209
15.
FoweI. E.BootW. R. (2022). Understanding older adults’ attitudes toward mobile and wearable technologies to support health and cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1036092. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1036092
16.
GoswamiA.DuttaS. (2016). Gender differences in technology usage—A literature review. Open Journal of Business and Management, 4(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2016.41006
GrayN.CharnessN. (2022). Technology obsolescence across the adult lifespan in a USA internet sample. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1005822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1005822
19.
HarrisM. T.BlockerK. A.RogersW. A. (2022). Older adults and smart technology: Facilitators and barriers to use. Frontiers of Computer Science, 4(2022), 835927. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2022.835927
JiangY.ZengK.YangR. (2023). Wearable device use in older adults associated with physical activity guideline recommendations: Empirical research quantitative. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 32(17-18), 6374–6383. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16631
22.
KameiT.KanamoriT.YamamotoY.EdirippuligeS. (2022). The use of wearable devices in chronic disease management to enhance adherence and improve telehealth outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 28(5), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X20937573
23.
KekadeS.HsiehC. H.IslamM. M.AtiqueS.KhalfanA. M.LiY. C.AbdulS. S. (2018). The usefulness and actual use of wearable devices among the elderly population. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 153, 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.10.008
24.
KimH. N.FreddolinoP. P.GreenhowC. (2023). Older adults’ technology anxiety as a barrier to digital inclusion: A scoping review. Educational Gerontology, 49(12), 1021–1038. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2023.2202080
25.
KöttlH.GallistlV.RohnerR.AyalonL. (2021). “But at the age of 85? Forget it!”: Internalized ageism, a barrier to technology use. Journal of Aging Studies, 59, 100971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2021.100971
26.
LauBH-PShumEN-YKwokAP-KLiuBC-PChanAC-KKwanRY-C, et al. (2025). Revealing the nuances of “Grey Digital Divide” in Hong Kong: A latent profile analysis. PLoS One, 20(7), e0326413. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326413
27.
LauB. H. P.ShumE. N. Y.LuiF. Y. F.LamG.KwokA. P. K.TsangC. K. (2023). Where is the digital divide? Intra-Generational divide on app usage in post-pandemic Hong Kong. Innovation in Aging, 7(1), 1152. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igad104.3696
28.
LeeS. (2023). Internet use and well-being of older adults before and during the covid-19 pandemic: Findings from European social survey. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 67(1), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2023.2217682
LennoxA.MüllerR. A.CoffieI. S. (2024). Encouraging continuous usage of wearable activity trackers: The interplay of perceived severity, susceptibility and social media influencers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(12), 1549. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21121549
31.
LiJ.MaQ.ChanA. H.ManS. S. (2019). Health monitoring through wearable technologies for older adults: Smart wearables acceptance model. Applied Ergonomics, 75, 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.10.006
32.
LluchJ.AbadF.Calduch-LosaÁ.RebolloM.JuanM. C. (2024). Gender differences and trends in the use of wearables in marathons. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 100063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2023.100063
33.
LoberaJ.Fernández RodríguezC. J.Torres-AlberoC. (2020). Privacy, values and machines: Predicting opposition to artificial intelligence. Communication Studies, 71(3), 448–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1736114
34.
MaZ.GaoQ.YangM. (2022). Adoption of wearable devices by older people: Changes in use behaviors and user experiences. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(5), 964–987. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2083573
35.
MateriaF. T.SmythJ. M. (2024). Acceptability and concerns about innovative wearable health sensors in persons with and without chronic disease diagnosis. Internet Interventions, 35, 100702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2023.100702
36.
Moral-MunozJ. A.ZhangW.CoboM. J.Herrera-ViedmaE.KaberD. B. (2021). Smartphone based systems for physical rehabilitation applications: A systematic review. Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of RESNA, 33(4), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2019.1611676
37.
MorrisonB. A.CoventryL.BriggsP. (2020). Technological change in the retirement transition and the implications for cybersecurity vulnerability in older adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 623. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00623
ParasuramanA.ColbyC. L. (2015). An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: Tri 2.0. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514539730
40.
PoolJ.AkhlaghpourS.FatehiF.GrayL. C. (2022). Data privacy concerns and use of telehealth in the aged care context: An integrative review and research agenda. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 160, 104707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104707
41.
ReadS.GrundyE.FoverskovE. (2016). Socio-economic position and subjective health and well being among older people in Europe: A systematic narrative review. Aging & Mental Health, 20(5), 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1023766
42.
RoqueN. A.BootW. R. (2018). A new tool for assessing mobile device proficiency in older adults: The Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire. Journal of Applied Gerontology: The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society, 37(2), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464816642582
43.
SchomakersE. M.ZiefleM. (2019). Privacy concerns and the acceptance of technologies for aging in place. (Vol. 1, pp. 313–331). Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design for the Elderly and Technology Acceptance: 5th International Conference, ITAP 2019, Held as Part of the 21st HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando, FL, USA, July 26-31, 2019. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22012-9_23
44.
SchomakersE.-M.ZiefleM. (2023). Privacy vs. Security: Trade-offs in the acceptance of smart technologies for aging-in-place. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(5), 1043–1058. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2078463
45.
ShumE. N. Y.LauB. H. P. (2024). Perils, power and promises: Latent profile analysis on the attitudes towards artificial intelligence (AI) among middle-aged and older adults in Hong Kong. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(2), 100091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100091
46.
TeixeiraE.FonsecaH.Diniz-SousaF.VerasL.BoppreG.OliveiraJ.PintoD.AlvesA. J.BarbosaA.MendesR.Marques-AleixoI. (2021). Wearable devices for physical activity and healthcare monitoring in elderly people: A critical review. Geriatrics, 6(2), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6020038
47.
VavasourG.GigginsO. M.DoyleJ.KellyD. (2021). How wearable sensors have been utilised to evaluate frailty in older adults: A systematic review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 18(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00909-0
48.
VenkateshV.ThongJ. Y. L.XuX. (2012). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology- Revised (UTAUT2) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t57179-000
ZhangX.HanX.DangY.MengF.GuoX.LinJ. (2017). User acceptance of mobile health services from users’ perspectives: The role of self-efficacy and response-efficacy in technology acceptance. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 42(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538157.2016.1200053
51.
ZhouJ.XiangH.XieB. (2023). Better safe than sorry: A study on older adults’ credibility judgments and spreading of health misinformation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 22(3), 957–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00899-3
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
