Older adults may benefit from using activity monitoring technologies to support health and wellness management. However, adoption of such technologies is contingent upon ease of use considerations. Age-related changes in cognitive and physical capabilities impact usability. Heuristic evaluation of two such technologies revealed important ease of use design issues that may be particularly problematic for this user group. Case studies of four older adults’ usage experiences over a two-week period revealed additional usability challenges. Human factors involvement in product development should address these issues to enable older adults to use these potentially beneficial technologies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barg-WalkowL. H.MitznerT. L.RogersW. A. (2014). Technology Experience Profile (HFA-TR-1402). Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Psychology, Human Factors and Aging Laboratory.
2.
BeckerH.StuifbergenA.OhH. S.HallS. (1993). Self-rated abilities for health practices: A health self-efficacy measure. Health Values: The Journal of Health Behavior, Education & Promotion, 17(5), 42-50.
3.
BodenheimerT.LorigK.HolmanH.GrumbachK. (2002). Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(19), 2469-2475.
4.
BujnochZ. (2011). Home healthcare and disease management for remote monitoring market: A cornerstone to tele-health. San Antonio.
5.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
6.
Ekblom-BakE.EkblomB.VikströmM.de FaireU.HelléniusM. L. (2014). The importance of non-exercise physical activity for cardiovascular health and longevity. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48(3), 233-238.
7.
FiskA. D.RogersW. A.CharnessN.CzajaS. J.SharitJ. (2009). Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press.
KingA. C.AhnD. K.OliveiraB. M.AtienzaA. A.CastroC. M.GardnerC. D. (2008). Promoting physical activity through hand-held computer technology. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(2), 138-142.
10.
MarklandD.IngledewD.K. (1997). The measurement of exercise motives: Factorial validity and invariance across gender of a revised Exercise Motivations Inventory. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 361-376.
11.
MitznerT. L.McBrideS. E.Barg-WalkowL. H.RogersW. A. (2013). Self-management of wellness and illness in an aging population. In MorrowD. G. (Ed.), Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics (Vol. 8, pp. 277-333). Santa Monica: HFES.
12.
NielsenJ. (1994). Usability inspection methods. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 413-414). ACM: Boston, MA.
13.
Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. (2008). Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report, 2008. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2008, A1-H14.
14.
Tudor-LockeC.CraigC. L.AoyagiY.BellR. C.CroteauK. A.De BourdeaudhuijI. . . . LutesL. D. (2011). How many steps/day are enough? For older adults and special populations. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition Physical Activity, 8(1), 80.
15.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
16.
WallstonK. A.WallstonB. S.DeVellisR. (1978). Development of the multidimensional health locus of control (MHLC) scales. Health Education & Behavior, 6(1), 160-170.
