Barriers to and Facilitators of Digital Health Technology Adoption Among Older Adults With Chronic Diseases: Updated Systematic Review.

IF 4.8 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
JMIR Aging Pub Date : 2025-09-11 DOI:10.2196/80000
Jennifer Hepburn, Lynn Williams, Lisa McCann
{"title":"Barriers to and Facilitators of Digital Health Technology Adoption Among Older Adults With Chronic Diseases: Updated Systematic Review.","authors":"Jennifer Hepburn, Lynn Williams, Lisa McCann","doi":"10.2196/80000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Older adults with chronic diseases are key beneficiaries of digital health technologies, yet adoption remains inconsistent, particularly in rural areas and among certain demographic groups, such as older women.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to identify barriers to and facilitators of digital health adoption among older adults with chronic diseases, with particular attention to rural-urban differences, co-design, and equity-relevant factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This updated review built on a previously published review by extending the search to include PsycArticles, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases for studies published between April 2022 and September 2024. Gray literature from August 2021 onward was also included. Studies were eligible if they reported barriers to or facilitators of digital health adoption among adults aged ≥60 years with chronic diseases. Findings were mapped to the capability, opportunity, and motivation-behavior model and analyzed using the PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence; race, ethnicity, culture, and language; occupation; gender and sex; religion; education; socioeconomic status; and social capital-plus) equity framework. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and all results are reported in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 12 studies from the original review were retained, with 17 new peer-reviewed studies added, yielding a total of 29 studies in addition to 30 documents identified in the gray literature search. Barriers included limited digital literacy and physical and cognitive challenges (capability); infrastructural deficits and usability challenges (opportunity); and privacy concerns, mistrust, and high satisfaction with existing care (motivation). Facilitators included tailored training and accessible design (capability), health care provider endorsement and hybrid care models (opportunity), and recognition of digital health benefits (motivation). Health care providers emerged as both facilitators and barriers, positively influencing adoption when engaged and trained but hindering it when lacking confidence or involvement. Comparative analysis of rural and urban contexts was limited by inconsistent reporting of equity-relevant variables. However, gray literature suggested that rural users face additional infrastructural challenges but express higher satisfaction with local care, potentially reducing motivation for digital uptake. Gender differences were observed in 5% (3/59) of the peer-reviewed studies and gray literature sources, with older women showing lower adoption and differing outcome priorities. Co-design enhanced adoption, especially when involving not just older adults but also health care providers and community stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital health adoption among older adults is shaped by capability, opportunity, and motivation factors. Effective and equitable digital health strategies must address infrastructural and literacy barriers, engage health care providers through training and co-design, and ensure multistakeholder involvement. This review highlights that greater attention to standardized reporting of demographic variables, especially gender and rurality, is essential in digital health research to support inclusive implementation.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42024586893; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024586893.</p><p><strong>International registered report identifier (irrid): </strong>RR2-https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp25X742161.</p>","PeriodicalId":36245,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Aging","volume":"8 ","pages":"e80000"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12464506/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Aging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/80000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Older adults with chronic diseases are key beneficiaries of digital health technologies, yet adoption remains inconsistent, particularly in rural areas and among certain demographic groups, such as older women.

Objective: This systematic review aimed to identify barriers to and facilitators of digital health adoption among older adults with chronic diseases, with particular attention to rural-urban differences, co-design, and equity-relevant factors.

Methods: This updated review built on a previously published review by extending the search to include PsycArticles, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases for studies published between April 2022 and September 2024. Gray literature from August 2021 onward was also included. Studies were eligible if they reported barriers to or facilitators of digital health adoption among adults aged ≥60 years with chronic diseases. Findings were mapped to the capability, opportunity, and motivation-behavior model and analyzed using the PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence; race, ethnicity, culture, and language; occupation; gender and sex; religion; education; socioeconomic status; and social capital-plus) equity framework. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and all results are reported in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

Results: In total, 12 studies from the original review were retained, with 17 new peer-reviewed studies added, yielding a total of 29 studies in addition to 30 documents identified in the gray literature search. Barriers included limited digital literacy and physical and cognitive challenges (capability); infrastructural deficits and usability challenges (opportunity); and privacy concerns, mistrust, and high satisfaction with existing care (motivation). Facilitators included tailored training and accessible design (capability), health care provider endorsement and hybrid care models (opportunity), and recognition of digital health benefits (motivation). Health care providers emerged as both facilitators and barriers, positively influencing adoption when engaged and trained but hindering it when lacking confidence or involvement. Comparative analysis of rural and urban contexts was limited by inconsistent reporting of equity-relevant variables. However, gray literature suggested that rural users face additional infrastructural challenges but express higher satisfaction with local care, potentially reducing motivation for digital uptake. Gender differences were observed in 5% (3/59) of the peer-reviewed studies and gray literature sources, with older women showing lower adoption and differing outcome priorities. Co-design enhanced adoption, especially when involving not just older adults but also health care providers and community stakeholders.

Conclusions: Digital health adoption among older adults is shaped by capability, opportunity, and motivation factors. Effective and equitable digital health strategies must address infrastructural and literacy barriers, engage health care providers through training and co-design, and ensure multistakeholder involvement. This review highlights that greater attention to standardized reporting of demographic variables, especially gender and rurality, is essential in digital health research to support inclusive implementation.

Trial registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42024586893; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024586893.

International registered report identifier (irrid): RR2-https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp25X742161.

老年慢性病患者采用数字健康技术的障碍和促进因素:更新的系统综述。
背景:患有慢性疾病的老年人是数字卫生技术的主要受益者,但采用情况仍然不一致,特别是在农村地区和某些人口群体,如老年妇女。目的:本系统综述旨在确定慢性病老年人采用数字健康的障碍和促进因素,特别关注城乡差异、共同设计和公平相关因素。方法:这篇更新的综述建立在先前发表的综述的基础上,扩展了搜索范围,包括PsycArticles、Scopus、Web of Science和PubMed数据库,检索发表于2022年4月至2024年9月之间的研究。2021年8月以后的灰色文献也被纳入。如果研究报告了60岁以上患有慢性疾病的成年人采用数字健康的障碍或促进因素,则该研究符合条件。研究结果被映射到能力、机会和动机-行为模型中,并使用PROGRESS-Plus(居住地、种族、民族、文化和语言、职业、性别和性别、宗教、教育、社会经济地位和社会资本+)公平框架进行分析。使用混合方法评估工具对质量进行评估,所有结果均按照PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目)指南进行报告。结果:总共保留了原始综述中的12项研究,加上17项新的同行评议研究,除了灰色文献检索中确定的30篇文献外,总共产生了29项研究。障碍包括有限的数字素养以及身体和认知方面的挑战(能力);基础设施缺陷和可用性挑战(机会);以及对隐私的担忧、不信任和对现有护理的高满意度(动机)。促进因素包括量身定制的培训和无障碍设计(能力)、卫生保健提供者的认可和混合护理模式(机会)以及对数字健康益处的认识(动机)。卫生保健提供者既是促进者又是障碍,在参与和培训时对采用产生积极影响,但在缺乏信心或参与时则阻碍采用。农村和城市背景的比较分析受到不一致的公平相关变量报告的限制。然而,灰色文献表明,农村用户面临额外的基础设施挑战,但对当地医疗服务表现出更高的满意度,这可能会降低他们接受数字服务的动机。在5%(3/59)的同行评议研究和灰色文献来源中观察到性别差异,老年妇女的采用率较低,结果优先级不同。共同设计提高了采用率,特别是当不仅涉及老年人,而且涉及卫生保健提供者和社区利益相关者时。结论:老年人的数字健康采用受能力、机会和动机因素的影响。有效和公平的数字卫生战略必须解决基础设施和扫盲障碍,通过培训和共同设计吸引卫生保健提供者,并确保多利益攸关方参与。本综述强调,在数字卫生研究中,更多地关注人口变量的标准化报告,特别是性别和农村因素,对于支持包容性实施至关重要。试验注册:普洛斯彼罗国际前瞻性系统评价注册CRD42024586893;https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024586893.International注册报表标识符(irrid): RR2-https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp25X742161。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Aging
JMIR Aging Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.10%
发文量
71
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信