What Makes Mobile Banking Difficult for Older Adults? A Multi-Layer Usability Investigation.

IF 4.4 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Promotion Perspectives Pub Date : 2026-06-06 eCollection Date: 2026-06-01 DOI:10.34172/hpp.44884
Elahe Amouzadeh, Iman Dianat, Javad Faradmal, Maryam Khalili, Mohammad Babamiri
{"title":"What Makes Mobile Banking Difficult for Older Adults? A Multi-Layer Usability Investigation.","authors":"Elahe Amouzadeh, Iman Dianat, Javad Faradmal, Maryam Khalili, Mohammad Babamiri","doi":"10.34172/hpp.44884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study evaluates the usability, accessibility, and ergonomic design of six widely used Iranian mobile banking applications for older adults (aged 60 and above) to enhance digital inclusion and promote healthy aging through improved financial access.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An <i>explanatory sequential</i> mixed-methods approach was utilized, integrating quantitative usability testing with the System Usability Scale (SUS) and qualitative heuristic evaluation using the Smartphone's Usability Heuristics (SMASH) framework. Five Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) experts evaluated the applications in a controlled lab setting, while 1,200 older adults from diverse backgrounds participated in usability testing and semi-structured interviews. Statistical analysis involved ANOVA with post hoc Least Significant Difference (LSD) tests to compare SUS scores across applications and age groups, complemented by thematic analysis of qualitative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Heuristic evaluation identified 135 usability issues, with error prevention (mean severity: 2.27) and visibility of system status (mean severity: 2.22) being the most critical. SUS scores varied significantly (F(5, 1194)=42.36, <i>P</i><0.001), ranging from 27.50 (SD=7.18) for Bank E to 59.02 (SD=7.94) for Bank A. Younger older adults (60-63 years) reported higher SUS scores (M=54.2) than those aged 72-75 (M=45.3, <i>P</i><0.001). Qualitative findings highlighted cultural mismatches and cognitive overload as key barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Poor usability in mobile banking apps widens the digital divide for older adults, hindering financial independence. Tailored designs with simplified interfaces, cultural relevance, and enhanced error prevention can improve digital health literacy, support equitable access and promote mental and social well-being among aging populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":46588,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Perspectives","volume":"16 1","pages":"74-84"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13402424/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/hpp.44884","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluates the usability, accessibility, and ergonomic design of six widely used Iranian mobile banking applications for older adults (aged 60 and above) to enhance digital inclusion and promote healthy aging through improved financial access.

Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach was utilized, integrating quantitative usability testing with the System Usability Scale (SUS) and qualitative heuristic evaluation using the Smartphone's Usability Heuristics (SMASH) framework. Five Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) experts evaluated the applications in a controlled lab setting, while 1,200 older adults from diverse backgrounds participated in usability testing and semi-structured interviews. Statistical analysis involved ANOVA with post hoc Least Significant Difference (LSD) tests to compare SUS scores across applications and age groups, complemented by thematic analysis of qualitative data.

Results: Heuristic evaluation identified 135 usability issues, with error prevention (mean severity: 2.27) and visibility of system status (mean severity: 2.22) being the most critical. SUS scores varied significantly (F(5, 1194)=42.36, P<0.001), ranging from 27.50 (SD=7.18) for Bank E to 59.02 (SD=7.94) for Bank A. Younger older adults (60-63 years) reported higher SUS scores (M=54.2) than those aged 72-75 (M=45.3, P<0.001). Qualitative findings highlighted cultural mismatches and cognitive overload as key barriers.

Conclusion: Poor usability in mobile banking apps widens the digital divide for older adults, hindering financial independence. Tailored designs with simplified interfaces, cultural relevance, and enhanced error prevention can improve digital health literacy, support equitable access and promote mental and social well-being among aging populations.

老年人使用手机银行困难的原因?多层可用性调查。
本研究评估了伊朗六款广泛使用的老年人(60岁及以上)移动银行应用程序的可用性、可访问性和人体工程学设计,以通过改善金融获取来增强数字包容性和促进健康老龄化。方法:采用解释性顺序混合方法,将定量可用性测试与系统可用性量表(SUS)相结合,并使用智能手机可用性启发式(SMASH)框架进行定性启发式评估。五名人机交互(HCI)专家在受控的实验室环境中评估应用程序,而来自不同背景的1200名老年人参与了可用性测试和半结构化访谈。统计分析包括方差分析和事后最小显著差异(LSD)检验,以比较不同应用程序和年龄组的SUS分数,并辅以定性数据的专题分析。结果:启发式评估确定了135个可用性问题,其中预防错误(平均严重程度:2.27)和系统状态可见性(平均严重程度:2.22)是最关键的。SUS得分差异显著(F(5,1194)=42.36, ppp)。结论:手机银行应用的可用性差扩大了老年人的数字鸿沟,阻碍了财务独立。具有简化界面、文化相关性和加强错误预防的量身定制设计可以提高数字卫生素养,支持公平获取,促进老年人的心理和社会福祉。
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
Health Promotion Perspectives
Health Promotion Perspectives PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
2.30%
发文量
27
审稿时长
13 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
小红书