Next Article in Journal
Prevalence and Risk Factors of Deep Venous Thrombosis in Intensive Inpatient Neurorehabilitation Unit
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents with Disabilities: A Bibliometric Review of Current Status, Guidelines, Perceived Barriers, and Facilitators and Future Directions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Unraveling the Nexus: Exploring the Relationship between Exercise Habits and Sleep Quality in Older Adults
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Age Unplugged: A Brief Narrative Review on the Intersection of Digital Tools, Sedentary and Physical Activity Behaviors in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

by
André Ramalho
1,2,*,
Rui Paulo
1,2,
Pedro Duarte-Mendes
1,2,
João Serrano
1,2 and
João Petrica
1,2
1
Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, 6000-266 Castelo Branco, Portugal
2
SPRINT Sport Physical Activity and Health Research & Innovation Center, 2001-904 Santarém, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2024, 12(9), 935; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12090935
Submission received: 10 April 2024 / Revised: 28 April 2024 / Accepted: 30 April 2024 / Published: 1 May 2024

Abstract

:
This brief narrative review assesses how digital technologies—such as wearables, mobile health apps, and various digital tools such as computers, game consoles, tablets, smartphones, and extended reality systems—can influence sedentary and physical activity behaviors among community-dwelling older adults. Each section highlights the central role of these technologies in promoting active aging through increased motivation, engagement and customized experiences. It underlines the critical importance of functionality, usability and adaptability of devices and confirms the effectiveness of digital interventions in increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior. The sustainable impact of these technologies needs to be further investigated, with a focus on adapting digital health strategies to the specific needs of older people. The research advocates an interdisciplinary approach and points out that such collaborations are essential for the development of accessible, effective and ethical solutions. This perspective emphasizes the potential of digital tools to improve the health and well-being of the aging population and recommends their strategic integration into health promotion and policy making.

1. A Roadmap to Healthy Aging: Innovating Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior

Around 1.4 billion people worldwide move less than the internationally recommended guidelines for physical activity (PA) [1]—a problem that is particularly pronounced among the over-60 s. This population group often does not reach the guideline of 150 min of moderate to vigorous PA per week, which is significantly detrimental to their health and overall well-being [2]. With the aging population expected to grow to over one billion people by 2050 [3] and current trends showing that people spend an average of 8 to 11 h per day sedentary [4,5], it has never been more important to mitigate the harmful effects of sedentary lifestyles [6].
Sedentary behavior (SB) and physical inactivity have a negative impact on the health of older adults, regardless of their PA level. The distinction between inactivity—defined by a lack of moderate to vigorous physical activity—and sedentary behavior, characterized by activities with an energy expenditure of ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents (MET), such as sitting, underscores the multifaceted challenge of addressing these health risks [7]. This nuanced differentiation requires an expansion of intervention strategies beyond mere adherence to PA guidelines that call for increased energy and muscle activity [8], as these are modulated by a range of cultural, social and personal factors that contribute to their dynamics [9]. This emphasizes the need for comprehensive socio-environmental strategies to promote more active and healthy lifestyles [10].
The confluence of an aging global population and technological innovation represents a critical juncture to address the dual challenge of physical inactivity and sedentary lifestyles in older people. The introduction of electronic health (eHealth) and mobile health (mHealth) services that use mobile devices and digital communication for health management [11] is in line with the World Health Organization’s [12] vision to promote a health-oriented society. These innovations play a critical role in the development, evaluation and implementation of breakthrough digital wellness technologies for the precise monitoring and management of PA and SB [13,14].
Recent research shows that older adults are receptive to digital health technologies that meet their specific needs in terms of functionality, design, implementation and personalization [15]. Key drivers for adoption include the ability to exercise at home, which is favored in many Western cultures, as well as a preference for group-based activities, which are particularly popular in Asian communities and other cultures. This highlights the need for a user-centered design paradigm in the development of digital health solutions for older people [15,16], ensuring that these technologies accommodate a wide range of exercise preferences and social interactions. Furthermore, increased health awareness and the pursuit of a higher quality of life are universal motivators that transcend cultural boundaries. This brief narrative review sheds light on the complex dynamics between technology, SB and PA behaviors in older adults. It draws on various lines of research and argues for creative approaches to reduce physical inactivity in the aging population, emphasizing the convergence of demographic changes and technological innovations [17,18].
This review examines the specific question: How do digital tools impact SB and PA among community-dwelling older adults? Accordingly, our purpose is twofold: first, to examine the influence of digital technologies—from wearables and mobile health (mHealth) applications to computers, gaming consoles, tablets, smartphones and extender reality (XR)—on sedentary and PA behaviors among community-dwelling older adults; second, to discuss how these technological innovations can cultivate an ecosystem that promotes active and healthy aging. The study underlines the critical role of technology in addressing the challenges posed by major demographic changes and thus provides valuable insights for research, practice and policy development in the fields of aging and health [14,15]. Ultimately, this research envisions a future in which technology integrates seamlessly into daily life, not just as a facilitator, but as a guide to a new concept of aging [19]—a journey characterized by autonomy and a continuous adaptability to the ever-changing contours of existence.

2. Laying the Groundwork: Literature Search Strategy

This study performs a qualitative synthesis and uses a streamlined literature review process guided by the SANRA (Scale for the Quality Assessment of Narrative Review Articles) [20] framework to ensure a high standard throughout the review. A strategic literature search was conducted to in the main electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. These platforms were selected after an initial review confirmed their extensive coverage of relevant literature. The search strategy was carefully developed and used keywords from three main domains: (a) digital technologies (e.g., wearables, mHealth applications, computers, game consoles, tablets, smartphones, artificial intelligence, augmented reality, mixed reality, and virtual reality); (b) movement behaviors (e.g., physical activity, exercise, sport, sedentary behavior, sedentary lifestyle, sitting time); and (c) demographic characteristics (e.g., aging, ageing, older persons, older adult, older, geriatric, community-dwelling older adults). The keywords within each domain were combined using the Boolean operator “OR” and the combined sets were then merged using “AND”. In addition, the references of the identified articles were reviewed to find other studies that met our inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers evaluated the titles, abstracts and full texts to decide on their inclusion or exclusion. Any disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through constructive discussion. A comprehensive approach was taken, considering a wide range of study types to fully understand the nuances, methods and critical outcomes relevant to the research topic. Accordingly, our inclusion criteria were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2013 and 2024, excluding conference proceedings, abstracts and unpublished manuscripts.

3. Tick-Tock, Tech-Talk: Wearables and the Dawn of Tech-Driven Aging

Wearable technology (WT) is at the forefront of technological advancement, revolutionizing the way older adults engage in PA and tackle SB. The concept refers to electronic devices designed to be worn on the body, either as accessories or embedded in clothing, which seamlessly integrate into daily activities to provide hands-free operations and functionalities like health monitoring, communication management, and connectivity [17,21]. The emergence of wearables represents a significant shift in personal health management and reflects a broader social trend towards merging technology with health and wellness [21]. These devices, which include fitness trackers and smartwatches, are at the vanguard of this movement. They are equipped with sophisticated features that promote self-monitoring, improve self-awareness and increase motivation, empowering individuals to actively monitor their health [22,23]. This aspect is particularly important considering that ingrained habits and lack of motivation are common triggers for SB, while increased awareness of SB and a sense of personal responsibility act as motivators for exercise [6]. By providing accurate data on key health indicators such as steps taken, heart rate, sleep quality and posture, WT provide insights that enable users to make informed decisions about their health [24].
The benefits of WT as an effective means of behavior change towards a more active lifestyle are well documented in the scientific literature. These devices have a dual function: they allow accurate tracking of PA and SB and are also an important tool for promoting health-promoting behaviors [25,26]. This dual effectiveness allows users to set personal goals and monitor their performance, which in turn encourages behavioral changes such as increasing the number of daily steps, increasing the duration of moderate to vigorous PA and reducing SB [25]. This approach leads to an overall increase in daily PA [27,28,29]. The integration of goal-setting and performance feedback features not only provides an enjoyable user experience but also fosters a self-reinforcing cycle of motivation and success. This cycle supports sustained adherence to exercise programs and contributes to reducing sedentary lifestyles [29,30]. Furthermore, WT empowers older people to self-regulate and take responsibility for their health and well-being, actively engaging in their personal care [27,31,32].
Research on strategies aimed at reducing SB in older adults shows that the use of technology, such as activity monitoring devices combined with behavioral feedback, is positively received. This population finds such technology-based interventions both enjoyable and seamless to integrate into their daily routines, representing a significant advance in efforts to reduce SB [26,33]. The adaptability of these interventions to individual lifestyles is particularly appreciated, as they allow customization to personal routines and preferences. For example, WT can be programmed to send reminders at times when the user is most likely to be inactive, such as during long periods of television viewing or after prolonged desk work. This flexibility increases the effectiveness of the reminder mechanisms [25,26,34]. Despite the initial hesitation, enthusiasm for the use of these technologies remains high, mainly due to their ease of use. Furthermore, research highlights the benefits of capturing SB contexts through images, enabling nuanced analysis of specific activities and postures, such as sitting or lying down, beyond the capabilities of activity monitors alone [34]. These findings highlight the feasibility and positive outcomes of using technology-enabled interventions to reduce SB in older populations and emphasize the need to tailor future interventions to their age-specific relevance. In addition, habit formation theory [35] suggests that sedentary habits are unconscious decisions. Interrupting these ingrained patterns by making them conscious through regular prompts to get up and move more has been shown to be effective [31]. Over time, these prompts should become redundant as the decision to stand up rather than sit down becomes an automatic and habitual action [35].
Further innovations in WT have introduced a range of personalized features that integrate interactive elements and tailored coaching strategies to increase user engagement and meet the specific needs of less active individuals [27,29,36]. Incorporating a social dimension into these devices increases motivation and accountability by fostering connections and community support, elements that are critical to promoting physical health. Shared experiences in tracking progress and overcoming challenges foster a sense of community and collective purpose, highlighting the central role of wearables in maintaining PA, improving overall well-being, and enhancing quality of life in the older population [37,38,39].
Overall, empirical research highlights the effectiveness and user satisfaction of WT in older adults and confirms the benefits in increasing PA, particularly in first-time users [26,36,40]. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that initial motivation does not necessarily lead to sustained engagement. Continued use depends on the user recognizing the long-term benefits underpinned by social support and intrinsic motivation [37]. Challenges such as technological limitations and the mere perception of activity levels—without corresponding behavioral adjustments—often lead to discontinued use [41]. Furthermore, the literature shows gender differences in adherence, with women showing higher compliance. This points to the complexity of digital health technologies in promoting geriatric health monitoring and suggests that barriers can significantly impact the long-term use of these devices [37,42,43].
To overcome such barriers, it is paramount to refine user interfaces, increase the clarity of displays, improve the usability of devices and help users interpret data effectively. Addressing these issues is critical to the smooth integration of WT into the daily lives of older people. By promoting wider adoption and optimizing health benefits, these improvements can ensure that WT realize their potential as invaluable tools for improving quality of life and well-being [44,45,46]. Such targeted improvements are important not only to encourage consistent use, but also to ensure that users can overcome the challenges that might otherwise lead to abandonment.

4. Health at Your Fingertips: The Rise of mHealth Applications

The emergence of mHealth applications represents a significant milestone in improving PA and reducing SB in older people and demonstrates the trend towards the use of digital health solutions in this population group [14,47,48]. mHealth applications are mobile software designed for smartphones, tablets, and other wireless devices that support health-related services, ranging from monitoring and managing medical conditions to providing wellness information and facilitating telemedicine interactions [48]. The proliferation of smartphones and wearables among older people has enabled a wide range of digital activities—from video communication to app use and internet browsing—that fit seamlessly into their daily routines and underscore their openness to technological advances [49,50]. These apps provide continuous health monitoring, personalized feedback, and features to support goal setting and self-monitoring, and use pedometers, structured exercise programs, gamification, and social networks to make PA both stimulating and rewarding [48,51].
Empirical evidence shows the effectiveness of mHealth interventions in increasing PA levels and reducing SB in previously inactive older adults [52,53,54]. Despite the potential of these interventions—from simple text messaging services to sophisticated apps—in promoting lifestyle change and combating inactivity, the need for expanded research on their long-term effectiveness is evident. For example, research by Compernolle and colleagues [36] shows that haptic feedback often does not lead to significant behavior change. This highlights the need for further studies to refine and optimize mHealth strategies for lasting behavior change. This points to a gap in the understanding of how to sustain the positive effects of mHealth interventions over time. Current research focuses primarily on short-term effects rather than the sustained benefits of reduced SB and increased PA [14,48].
Research on the feasibility and acceptability of mHealth technologies in older populations has yielded encouraging results [55,56], suggesting that these applications are capable of providing tailored support and content to meet the diverse needs of this cohort [53]. However, the application of behavioral theories such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Behavior Change Support System (BCSS) [57,58,59] in the development of health-promoting apps is inconsistent, with thorough analyses of their effectiveness still lacking [52]. TAM, in particular, has been criticized for focusing too much on perceived usefulness and ease of use and neglecting broader factors such as organizational compliance and external variables such as age and education. Critics argue for a more comprehensive model that incorporates a wider range of behavioral and contextual influences to improve prediction of technology adoption [60,61]. In addition, the digital divide is a significant barrier that particularly impacts marginalized older people by limiting their access to these technological innovations [53].
The recognized benefits and widespread endorsement of mHealth interventions supported by motivational support are well known. Nevertheless, further empirical research is needed to determine the relative effectiveness of different interventions, the optimal timing for prompting activity and the sustained feasibility of these digital health strategies [62]. The drive to amplify the benefits of mHealth is an active area of research aimed at refining application features, improving user interfaces, and conducting rigorous evaluations of these interventions. Such efforts are critical for determining the most effective intervention strategies, fine-tuning the frequency of activity prompts, and ensuring long-term, transparent use of mHealth solutions [62,63,64]. With a focus on intuitive design and the use of widely accessible mobile technologies, mHealth programs have great potential to improve the health and well-being of the aging population, provided that the identified areas for improvement are addressed.
In addition, the impact of mHealth on older adults in technologically underserved areas should be further explored to recognize and alleviate the associated challenges [55,65]. The development of user-friendly, accessible mHealth applications requires the identification and overcoming of specific technological barriers to use among older people, such as physical, cognitive and perceptual limitations [66,67]. With a user-centered design philosophy, mHealth interventions can be more precisely tailored to the specific needs of older adults and significantly advance the digital transformation of healthcare to improve accessibility, increase well-being and reduce risks for this important population [68].

5. Other Digital Devices: Exploring their Use in Exercise Programs for Older Adults

The integration of digital technologies into exercise programs for older people means a significant improvement in quality of life and PA levels. This progress is enabled by a range of digital tools such as computers, game consoles, tablets, smartphones and XR technologies [69], each tailored to the specific needs of the older population. These innovations are changing the PA landscape by overcoming traditional barriers such as social isolation and mobility limitations and increasing the reach and attractiveness of PA alternatives for this population group [70,71,72].
Digital devices such as computers, game consoles, tablets and smartphones play a crucial role in promoting PA and mitigating SB in an aging society [19,73]. Motion-capture technologies such as Wii and Kinect offer multiple opportunities for exercise, while web-based interventions and platforms such as Zoom (version 6.0.3) or Skype (version 8) offer significant advances in promoting health and well-being in older adults [74]. These technological solutions not only offer viable alternatives to traditional exercise methods but have also been shown to be effective in maintaining high levels of engagement among participants, as evidenced by minimal dropout rates and increased participation in activity programs [73,75,76]. In addition, the adaptability and straightforward access to tablets and smartphones allows older people to personalize their exercise routines effectively. For example, a user-friendly application can guide the user through a series of customizable workout settings that adapt to their fitness level and preferences. This type of application illustrates how easy access to technology facilitates the customization of exercise content, promotes independence, and facilitates the integration of PA into daily routines [75].
In addition, the range of XR technologies—augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR) and virtual reality (VR)—represents an innovative paradigm for improving PA in older adults, providing immersive and interactive experiences [69,77]. AR uses devices such as smartphones and smart glasses to augment physical reality with digital information and support activities that require spatial awareness. At the same time, MR merges the digital and physical worlds and enables the use of advanced technologies, such as the HoloLens, for therapeutic purposes and exercise interventions [78]. These XR modalities not only enhance the exercise experience, but also meet the demand for diverse and engaging PA. They promise to improve older adults’ self-efficacy, motivation and mood, thus promoting safer exercise behavior [79]. Nevertheless, research on the influence of these psychological and motivational factors on PA participation in older adults is nascent, highlighting the need for further investigation into the symbiotic relationship between technological advances and geriatric health [77,79].
VR technologies, such as Oculus Rift and HTC Vive, are redefining the exercise paradigm for older adults by creating immersive environments that support a variety of PA, from yoga to cycling [69]. These platforms use head-mounted displays and motion tracking to offer a personalized and motivating movement experience that transcends the traditional boundaries of PA [79,80]. VR exergames, which combine PA with entertainment, have been shown to be effective in maintaining user engagement and minimizing dropout rates, highlighting the ability of VR to make exercise more appealing to older people [81,82,83]. Nonetheless, overcoming barriers related to technological literacy, health limitations and socio-economic factors is crucial to increase the acceptance of VR among older people. For VR content to be successfully integrated into the lives of older people, it is important that it is engaging, ethically acceptable and complements interaction with the real world [84].
Studies indicate a clear preference among older adults for VR experiences that emphasize enjoyment, suggesting that incidental PA is the preferred form of engagement [85]. This preference highlights the importance of longitudinal research to understand older adults’ long-term engagement with VR and to gain insights into the evolution of their interactions with the technology. In addition, research has shed light on the critical role of digital interventions, particularly immersive VR exergames, in promoting PA and reducing SB in older adults, thereby improving their health, well-being, and quality of life. These technologies, recognized for their ease of use, effectiveness, and ability to increase user engagement, are central to promoting healthier behavior in older adults [17,70,85]. The strategic use of gamification elements, such as leaderboards, acts as a motivator for increased PA and merits further investigation [86]. Ongoing development and research of these digital platforms is critical to expanding their reach and effectiveness, making them robust tools for promoting an empowered, active aging community [84].

6. Conclusions: Connecting the Dots

This brief review takes a look at the central role of digital technologies—from wearables and mHealth applications to XR systems—in increasing PA and reducing SB among community-dwelling older adults. These technological advances are lauded for their transformative impact on the active aging landscape, going beyond traditional health intervention models and significantly improving quality of life. The nuanced analysis highlights that the effective use of these digital solutions depends on careful consideration of device functionality, ease of use, and individual preferences [21,87], and advocates for a holistic, user-centered approach to the design of digital interventions [45,85,88]. Furthermore, it has been shown that embedding these digital interventions into established behavioral frameworks, particularly is crucial for optimizing user accessibility and engagement.
The following table (Table 1) provides a summary of main findings, implications and future directions for various digital technologies used to increase PA and reduce SB.
Future research and development efforts must be closely aligned with the specific needs of the aging population and promote initiatives to strengthen digital literacy and self-efficacy [44]. A key element in this context is the thorough assessment of the sustainable impact of artificial intelligence-driven (AI) health ecosystems and interactive gaming platforms on PA and SB, with a particular focus on the extensive psychosocial impact of XR technologies. At the same time, it is imperative to bridge the digital divide and address important ethical considerations—including privacy risks and the potential for technology addiction—to ensure universal access and safeguard individual well-being [77,89].
AI, which includes areas such as machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), is playing an increasingly important role in health sciences, enabling advances in everything from disease prediction to patient communication [90]. In the field of PA, AI’s ability to adapt programs, provide instant feedback and analyze behavioral data significantly improves the effectiveness and specificity of fitness recommendations. Empirical studies clearly demonstrate that AI models outperform traditional statistical methods in identifying exercise patterns and optimizing intervention outcomes [91]. There is a clear trend towards the use of more sophisticated DL and reinforcement learning (RL) models for complicated tasks related to behavior change and decision-making processes. Key areas for future AI research in PA include customization of interventions, real-time monitoring, integration of multimodal data sources, evaluation of intervention effectiveness, expanding access to interventions, and injury prediction and prevention [90,92]. These advances underscore the transformative potential of AI in redefining PA interventions that can be tailored more effectively and individually to significantly improve health outcomes.
Creating an age-friendly digital environment further requires an interdisciplinary approach that brings together expertise from the fields of gerontology, technology, design and policy to enable effective and ethical interventions. This collaboration is crucial to establish technology as a supportive companion on the aging journey [84]. Interweaving behavioral science principles with considerations of scalability, accessibility, and cultural relevance will lay the foundation for a future in which technology acts as a catalyst for a more engaged, healthy, and vibrant older population. Integrating these technological innovations into healthcare strategies requires political support that advocates for the development and equitable distribution of digital health solutions that are accessible to all older adults. Participatory development of technologies with the direct involvement of older people is advocated as a way to develop solutions that truly meet their needs and preferences. This embodies an inclusive strategy that emphasizes the central role of digital innovation in promoting active aging and significantly improving the quality of life in our aging society.
Furthermore, there is an urgent need for comprehensive qualitative research to unravel the complex effects of digital technologies on sedentary and PA behaviors. Such research needs to examine in detail how a range of factors, including geographic location (rural or urban), gender, socioeconomic status, and employment status (working or retired), influence these behaviors. The importance of qualitative research lies in its ability to provide deep insights into complex health phenomena, contextual nuances and stakeholder perspectives, enabling improvements in health interventions [93]. Assessing the benefits of digital devices across the demographic spectrum of older adults, particularly those with varying health conditions and functional abilities, is considered essential. Therefore, future research efforts should emphasize epidemiologic studies of digital tool use, careful analyzes of environmental and community factors that promote digital engagement, and the development of digital strategies tailored to the diverse needs of the aging population. Adapting interventions to the different cultural, economic and gender realities of older people is fundamental to increase the relevance and effectiveness of these interventions. Pursuing the outlined issues will enable a better understanding of the role of digital technologies in promoting active aging and improving health outcomes for the growing older population.
In summary, an expanded understanding of active aging through the lens of digital innovation is central to developing progressive health policies and promoting a societal ethos that values and encourages the engagement of older people. This endeavor requires the development of digital technologies that go beyond mere utility and instead create an environment that actively promotes and supports active aging. The goal is to transform older adults from passive recipients of healthcare services to active participants in a digitally integrated community. Drawing on Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach [94], which assumes that a meaningful life can be achieved through the realization of individual potential, this perspective advocates the creation of a social framework in which technology helps to enhance the contribution of older people. Such a framework aims to cultivate a community that recognizes and values the wisdom and dynamism of its older members with great dignity and respect.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R.; validation, A.R. and J.P.; formal analysis, A.R., R.P., P.D.-M. and J.S.; investigation, A.R. and J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.; writing—review and editing, A.R.; visualization, A.R., R.P., P.D.-M., J.S. and J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Guthold, R.; Stevens, G.A.; Riley, L.M.; Bull, F.C. Worldwide Trends in Insufficient Physical Activity from 2001 to 2016: A Pooled Analysis of 358 Population-Based Surveys with 1.9 Million Participants. Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e1077–e1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bull, F.C.; Al-Ansari, S.S.; Biddle, S.; Borodulin, K.; Buman, M.P.; Cardon, G.; Carty, C.; Chaput, J.-P.; Chastin, S.; Chou, R.; et al. World Health Organization 2020 Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020, 54, 1451–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. World Health Organization (WHO). Ageing and Health. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health (accessed on 9 March 2024).
  4. Ekelund, U.; Tarp, J.; Steene-Johannessen, J.; Hansen, B.H.; Jefferis, B.; Fagerland, M.W.; Whincup, P.; Diaz, K.M.; Hooker, S.P.; Chernofsky, A.; et al. Dose-Response Associations between Accelerometry Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Time and All Cause Mortality: Systematic Review and Harmonised Meta-Analysis. BMJ 2019, 366, l4570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Harvey, J.; Chastin, S.; Skelton, D. How Sedentary Are Older People? A Systematic Review of the Amount of Sedentary Behaviour. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2015, 23, 471–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ramalho, A.; Petrica, J. The Quiet Epidemic: An Overview of Emerging Qualitative Research Trends on Sedentary Behavior in Aging Populations. Healthcare 2023, 11, 2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tremblay, M.S.; Aubert, S.; Barnes, J.D.; Saunders, T.J.; Carson, V.; Latimer-Cheung, A.E.; Chastin, S.F.M.; Altenburg, T.M.; Chinapaw, M.J.M. SBRN Terminology Consensus Project Participants. Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN)—Terminology Consensus Project Process and Outcome. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act 2017, 14, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Caspersen, C.J.; Powell, K.E.; Christenson, G.M. Physical Activity, Exercise, and Physical Fitness: Definitions and Distinctions for Health-Related Research. Public Health Rep. 1985, 100, 126–131. [Google Scholar]
  9. Piggin, J. What Is Physical Activity? A Holistic Definition for Teachers, Researchers and Policy Makers. Front. Sports Act. Living 2020, 2, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Owen, N.; Healy, G.N.; Dempsey, P.C.; Salmon, J.; Timperio, A.; Clark, B.K.; Goode, A.D.; Koorts, H.; Ridgers, N.D.; Hadgraft, N.T.; et al. Sedentary Behavior and Public Health: Integrating the Evidence and Identifying Potential Solutions. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2020, 41, 265–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moss, R.J.; Süle, A.; Kohl, S. Health and mHealth. Eur. J. Hosp. Pharm. 2019, 26, 57–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. WHO. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier World; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  13. Longhini, J.; Marzaro, C.; Bargeri, S.; Palese, A.; Dell’isola, A.; Turolla, A.; Pillastrini, P.; Battista, S.; Castellini, G.; Cook, C.; et al. Wearable Devices to Improve Physical Activity and Reduce Sedentary Behaviour: An Umbrella Review. Sports Med. Open 2024, 10, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Stockwell, S.; Schofield, P.; Fisher, A.; Firth, J.; Jackson, S.E.; Stubbs, B.; Smith, L. Digital Behavior Change Interventions to Promote Physical Activity and/or Reduce Sedentary Behavior in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Exp. Gerontol. 2019, 120, 68–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Weber, M.; Schmitt, K.U.; Frei, A.; Puhan, M.A.; Raab, A.M. Needs Assessment in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Toward Digital Interventions to Promote Physical Activity: Cross-Sectional Survey Study. Digit. Health 2023, 9, 20552076231203785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Stawarz, K.; Liang, I.J.; Alexander, L.; Carlin, A.; Wijekoon, A.; Western, M.J. Exploring the Potential of Technology to Promote Exercise Snacking for Older Adults Who Are Prefrail in the Home Setting: User-Centered Design Study. JMIR Aging 2023, 6, e41810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Greco, G.; Poli, L.; Clemente, F.M.; Fischetti, F.; Cataldi, S. The Effectiveness of New Digital Technologies in Increasing Physical Activity Levels and Promoting Active and Healthy Ageing: A Narrative Review. Health Soc. Care Community 2023, 2023, 2803620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Portegijs, E.; Lee, C.; Zhu, X. Activity-Friendly Environments for Active Aging: The Physical, Social, and Technology Environments. Front. Public Health 2023, 10, 1080148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Muñoz, J.; Mehrabi, S.; Li, Y.; Basharat, A.; E Middleton, L.; Cao, S.; Barnett-Cowan, M.; Boger, J. Immersive Virtual Reality Exergames for Persons Living With Dementia: User-Centered Design Study as a Multistakeholder Team During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JMIR Serious Games 2022, 10, e29987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Baethge, C.; Goldbeck-Wood, S.; Mertens, S. SANRA—A scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res. Integr. Peer Rev. 2019, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Kyytsönen, M.; Vehko, T.; Anttila, H.; Ikonen, J. Factors Associated with Use of Wearable Technology to Support Activity, Well-Being, or a Healthy Lifestyle in the Adult Population and Among Older Adults. PLOS Digit. Health 2023, 2, e0000245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Attig, C.; Franke, T. I Track, Therefore I Walk—Exploring the Motivational Costs of Wearing Activity Trackers in Actual Users. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2019, 127, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yen, H.-Y.; Huang, H.-Y. Comparisons of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Between Owners and Non-Owners of Commercial Wearable Devices. Perspect. Public Health 2021, 141, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Godfrey, A.; Hetherington, V.; Shum, H.; Bonato, P.; Lovell, N.H.; Stuart, S. From A to Z: Wearable Technology Explained. Maturitas 2018, 113, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Liu, J.Y.; Kor, P.P.; Chan, C.P.; Kwan, R.Y.; Cheung, D.S. The Effectiveness of a Wearable Activity Tracker (WAT)-Based Intervention to Improve Physical Activity Levels in Sedentary Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2020, 91, 104211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Roberts, L.M.; Jaeger, B.C.; Baptista, L.C.; Harper, S.A.; Gardner, A.K.; Jackson, E.A.; Pekmezi, D.; Sandesara, B.; Manini, T.M.; Anton, S.D.; et al. Wearable Technology To Reduce Sedentary Behavior And CVD Risk In Older Adults: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Interv. Aging 2019, 14, 1817–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ferguson, T.; Olds, T.; Curtis, R.; Blake, H.; Crozier, A.J.; Dankiw, K.; Dumuid, D.; Kasai, D.; O’Connor, E.; Virgara, R.; et al. Effectiveness of Wearable Activity Trackers to Increase Physical Activity and Improve Health: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Lancet Digit. Health 2022, 4, e615–e626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Li, C.; Chen, X.; Bi, X. Wearable Activity Trackers for Promoting Physical Activity: A Systematic Meta-Analytic Review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2021, 152, 104487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Wu, S.; Li, G.; Du, L.; Chen, S.; Zhang, X.; He, Q. The Effectiveness of Wearable Activity Trackers for Increasing Physical Activity and Reducing Sedentary Time in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Digit. Health 2023, 9, 20552076231176705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Shei, R.J.; Holder, I.G.; Oumsang, A.S.; Paris, B.A.; Paris, H.L. Wearable Activity Trackers—Advanced Technology or Advanced Marketing? Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2022, 122, 1975–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Braakhuis, H.E.M.; Berger, M.A.M.; Bussmann, J.B.J. Effectiveness of Healthcare Interventions Using Objective Feedback on Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JMR 2019, 51, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brickwood, K.J.; Watson, G.; O’Brien, J.; Williams, A.D. Consumer-Based Wearable Activity Trackers Increase Physical Activity Participation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2019, 7, e11819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Matson, T.E.; Renz, A.D.; Takemoto, M.L.; McClure, J.B.; Rosenberg, D.E. Acceptability of a Sitting Reduction Intervention for Older Adults with Obesity. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Harvey, J.A.; Skelton, D.A.; Chastin, S.F.M. Acceptability of Novel Lifelogging Technology to Determine Context of Sedentary Behaviour in Older Adults. AIMS Public Health 2016, 3, 158–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lally, P.; Wardle, J.; Gardner, B. Experiences of Habit Formation: A Qualitative Study. Psychol. Health Med. 2011, 16, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Compernolle, S.; Van Dyck, D.; Cardon, G.; Brondeel, R. Exploring Breaks in Sedentary Behavior of Older Adults Immediately after Receiving Personalized Haptic Feedback: Intervention Study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2021, 9, e26387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, L.; Peng, W.; Kononova, A.; Bowen, M.; Cotten, S.R. Factors Associated with Older Adults’ Long-Term Use of Wearable Activity Trackers. Telemed. e-Health 2020, 26, 769–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Suh, A.; Li, M. How the Use of Mobile Fitness Technology Influences Older Adults’ Physical and Psychological Well-Being. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 131, 107205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moore, K.; O’Shea, E.; Kenny, L.; Barton, J.; Tedesco, S.; Sica, M.; Crowe, C.; Alamäki, A.; Condell, J.; Nordström, A.; et al. Older Adults’ Experiences with Using Wearable Devices: Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2021, 9, e23832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Straiton, N.; Alharbi, M.; Bauman, A.; Neubeck, L.; Gullick, J.; Bhindi, R. The Validity and Reliability of Consumer-Grade Activity Trackers in Older, Community-Dwelling Adults: A Systematic Review. Maturitas 2018, 112, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kononova, A.; Li, L.; Kamp, K.; Bowen, M.; Rikard, R.V.; Cotten, S.; Peng, W. The Use of Wearable Activity Trackers among Older Adults: Focus Group Study of Tracker Perceptions, Motivators, and Barriers in the Maintenance Stage of Behavior Change. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2019, 7, e9832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. St Fleur, R.G.; St George, S.M.; Leite, R.; Kobayashi, M.; Agosto, Y.; Jake-Schoffman, D.E. Use of Fitbit Devices in Physical Activity Intervention Studies Across the Life Course: Narrative Review. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2021, 9, e23411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Puri, A.; Kim, B.; Nguyen, O.; Stolee, P.; Tung, J.; Lee, J. User Acceptance of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Mixed Method Study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2017, 5, e8211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. König, L.M.; Sproesser, G.; Schupp, H.T.; Renner, B. Describing the Process of Adopting Nutrition and Fitness Apps: Behavior Stage Model Approach. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2018, 6, e55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zander, V.; Gustafsson, C.; Landerdahl Stridsberg, S.; Borg, J. Implementation of Welfare Technology: A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2021, 18, 913–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Attig, C.; Franke, T. Abandonment of personal quantification: A Review and Empirical Study Investigating Reasons for Wearable Activity Tracking Attrition. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 102, 223–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Muellmann, S.; Forberger, S.; Möllers, T.; Bröring, E.; Zeeb, H.; Pischke, C.R. Effectiveness of eHealth Interventions for the Promotion of Physical Activity in Older Adults: A Systematic Review. Prev. Med. 2018, 108, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yerrakalva, D.; Yerrakalva, D.; Hajna, S.; Griffin, S. Effects of Mobile Health App Interventions on Sedentary Time, Physical Activity, and Fitness in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JMIR 2019, 21, e14343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Neves, B.B.; Franz, R.; Judges, R.; Beermann, C.; Baecker, R. Can Digital Technology Enhance Social Connectedness among Older Adults? A Feasibility Study. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2019, 38, 49–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Pew Research Center. Mobile Fact Sheet. 2021. Available online: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ (accessed on 15 March 2024).
  51. Changizi, M.; Kaveh, M.H. Effectiveness of the mHealth Technology in Improvement of Healthy Behaviors in an Elderly Population—A Systematic Review. mHealth 2017, 3, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Direito, A.; Carraça, E.; Rawstorn, J.; Whittaker, R.; Maddison, R. mHealth Technologies to Influence Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors: Behavior Change Techniques, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann. Behav. Med. 2017, 51, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. King, A.C.; Hekler, E.B.; Grieco, L.A.; Winter, S.J.; Sheats, J.L.; Buman, M.P.; Banerjee, B.; Robinson, T.N.; Cirimele, J. Effects of Three Motivationally Targeted Mobile Device Applications on Initial Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Change in Midlife and Older Adults: A Randomized Trial. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0156370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, M.; Wang, W.; Li, M.; Sheng, H.; Zhai, Y. Efficacy of Mobile Health Applications to Improve Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Physically Inactive Individuals. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Elavsky, S.; Klocek, A.; Knapova, L.; Smahelova, M.; Smahel, D.; Cimler, R.; Kuhnova, J. Feasibility of Real-time Behavior Monitoring via Mobile Technology in Czech Adults Aged 50 Years and above: 12-Week Study with Ecological Momentary Assessment. JMIR Aging 2021, 4, e15220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. McGarrigle, L.; Todd, C. Promotion of Physical Activity in Older People Using mHealth and eHealth Technologies: Rapid Review of Reviews. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e22201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Davis, R.; Campbell, R.; Hildon, Z.; Hobbs, L.; Michie, S. Theories of Behaviour and Behaviour Change across the Social and Behavioural Sciences: A Scoping Review. Health Psychol. Rev. 2015, 9, 323–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. A Foundation for the Study of Behavior Change Support Systems. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2013, 17, 1223–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Maruping, L.M.; Bala, H.; Venkatesh, V.; Brown, S.A. Going beyond intention: Integrating behavioral expectation into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2017, 68, 623–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Malatji, W.R.; Eck, R.V.; Zuva, T. Understanding the usage, modifications, limitations and criticisms of technology acceptance model (TAM). Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 2020, 5, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Aslam, A.S.; van Luenen, S.; Aslam, S.; van Bodegom, D.; Chavannes, N.H. A Systematic Review on the Use of mHealth to Increase Physical Activity in Older People. CEH 2020, 3, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Janols, R.; Sandlund, M.; Lindgren, H.; Pettersson, B. Older Adults as Designers of Behavior Change Strategies to Increase Physical Activity-Report of a Participatory Design Process. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 988470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ueno, D.T.; Guerra, P.H.; Christofoletti, A.E.M.; Bonolo, A.; Nakamura, P.M.; Kokubun, E. Mobile Health Apps to Reduce Sedentary Behavior: A Scoping Review. Health Promot. Int. 2022, 37, daab124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Yusif, S.; Hafeez-Baig, A.; Soar, J. e-Health Readiness Assessment Factors and Measuring Tools: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2017, 107, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Wildenbos, G.A.; Peute, L.; Jaspers, M. Aging Barriers Influencing Mobile Health Usability for Older Adults: A Literature Based Framework (MOLD-US). Int. J. Med. Inform. 2018, 114, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Wang, Q.; Liu, J.; Zhou, L.; Tian, J.; Chen, X.; Zhang, W.; Wang, H.; Zhou, W.; Gao, Y. Usability Evaluation of mHealth Apps for Elderly Individuals: A Scoping Review. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2022, 22, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Ruzic, L.; Sanford, J.A. Universal Design Mobile Interface Guidelines (UDMIG) for an Aging Population. In Mobile e-Health; Human–Computer Interaction, Series; Marston, H., Freeman, S., Musselwhite, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Šlosar, L.; Voelcker-Rehage, C.; Paravlić, A.H.; Abazovic, E.; de Bruin, E.D.; Marusic, U. Combining Physical and Virtual Worlds for Motor-Cognitive Training Interventions: Position Paper with Guidelines on Technology Classification in Movement-Related Research. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1009052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Gray, S.M.; Franke, T.; Sims-Gould, J.; McKay, H.A. Rapidly Adapting an Effective Health Promoting Intervention for Older Adults-Choose to Move-For Virtual Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Mehrabi, S.; Muñoz, J.E.; Basharat, A.; Boger, J.; Cao, S.; Barnett-Cowan, M.; Middleton, L.E. Immersive Virtual Reality Exergames to Promote the Well-being of Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Pilot Study. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2022, 11, e32955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nascimento, M.M.; Araújo, J.V.S.; da Cruz Neto, P.C.; Rios, P.M.B.; Silva, C.N.; Ihle, A. Internet-Based Video Program to Promote Physical Activity, Health, and Well-Being of Brazilian Older Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Granet, J.; Peyrusqué, E.; Ruiz, F.; Buckinx, F.; Abdelkader, L.B.; Dang-Vu, T.T.; Sirois, M.J.; Gouin, J.P.; Pageaux, B.; Aubertin-Leheudre, M. Web-Based Physical Activity Interventions Are Feasible and Beneficial Solutions to Prevent Physical and Mental Health Declines in Community-Dwelling Older Adults during Isolation Periods. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2023, 78, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Peterlin, J.; Dimovski, V.; Colnar, S.; Blažica, B.; Kejžar, A. Older Adults’ Perceptions of Online Physical Exercise Management. Front. Public Health 2024, 12, 1303113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Stara, V.; Rampioni, M.; Moșoi, A.A.; Kristaly, D.M.; Moraru, S.-A.; Paciaroni, L.; Paolini, S.; Raccichini, A.; Felici, E.; Rossi, L.; et al. A Technology-Based Intervention to Support Older Adults in Living Independently: Protocol for a Cross-National Feasibility Pilot. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Schwartz, H.; Har-Nir, I.; Wenhoda, T.; Halperin, I. Staying Physically Active during the COVID-19 Quarantine: Exploring the Feasibility of Live, Online, Group Training Sessions Among Older Adults. Transl. Behav. Med. 2021, 11, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Margrett, J.A.; Ouverson, K.M.; Gilbert, S.B.; Phillips, L.A.; Charness, N. Older Adults’ Use of Extended Reality: A Systematic Review. Front. Virtual Real. 2022, 2, 760064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liberatore, M.J.; Wagner, W. Virtual, Mixed, and Augmented Reality: A Systematic Review for Immersive Systems Research. Virtual Real. 2021, 25, 773–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chirico, A.; Avellone, M.; Palombi, T.; Alivernini, F.; Alessandri, G.; Filosa, L.; Pistella, J.; Baiocco, R.; Lucidi, F. Exploring the Psychological Nexus of Virtual and Augmented Reality on Physical Activity in Older Adults: A Rapid Review. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Sakhare, A.R.; Yang, V.; Stradford, J.; Tsang, I.; Ravichandran, R.; Pa, J. Cycling and Spatial Navigation in an Enriched, Immersive 3D Virtual Park Environment: A Feasibility Study in Younger and Older Adults. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2019, 11, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Campo-Prieto, P.; Cancela-Carral, J.M.; Alsina-Rey, B.; Rodríguez-Fuentes, G. Immersive Virtual Reality as a Novel Physical Therapy Approach for Nonagenarians: Usability and Effects on Balance Outcomes of a Game-Based Exercise Program. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kwan, R.Y.C.; Liu, J.Y.W.; Fong, K.N.K.; Qin, J.; Leung, P.K.; Sin, O.S.K.; Hon, P.Y.; Suen, L.W.; Tse, M.K.; Lai, C.K. Feasibility and Effects of Virtual Reality Motor-Cognitive Training in Community-Dwelling Older People With Cognitive Frailty: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Serious Games 2021, 9, e28400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Syed-Abdul, S.; Malwade, S.; Nursetyo, A.A.; Sood, M.; Bhatia, M.; Barsasella, D.; Liu, M.F.; Chang, C.C.; Srinivasan, K.; M, R.; et al. Virtual Reality Among the Elderly: A Usefulness and Acceptance Study from Taiwan. BMC Geriatr. 2019, 19, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ramalho, A.; Duarte-Mendes, P.; Paulo, R.; Serrano, J.; Petrica, J. Crossing the Digital Frontier: Are Older Adults Ready for Virtual Reality Workouts? Front. Public Health 2024, 12, 1324004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Healy, D.; Carr, E.; Conlan, O.; Browne, A.C.; Walsh, J.C. Exploring the Content of the STAND-VR Intervention: A Qualitative Interview Study. PLoS Digit. Health 2023, 2, e0000210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Maher, C.A.; Olds, T.; Vandelanotte, C.; Plotnikoff, R.; Edney, S.M.; Ryan, J.C.; DeSmet, A.; Curtis, R.G. Gamification in a Physical Activity App: What Gamification Features Are Being Used, by Whom, and Does It Make a Difference? Games Health J. 2022, 11, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Adapa, A.; Nah, F.F.; Hall, R.H.; Siau, K.; Smith, S.N. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Smart Wearable Devices. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Int. 2018, 34, 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Talukder, M.S.; Chiong, R.; Bao, Y.; Malik, B.H. Acceptance and Use Predictors of Fitness Wearable Technology and Intention to Recommend. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2019, 119, 170–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Larsen, R.T.; Christensen, J.; Juhl, C.B.; Andersen, H.B.; Langberg, H. Physical Activity Monitors to Enhance Amount of Physical Activity in Older Adults—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur. Rev. Aging Phys. Act. 2019, 16, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. An, R.; Shen, J.; Wang, J.; Yang, Y. A scoping review of methodologies for applying artificial intelligence to physical activity interventions. J. Sport Health Sci. 2023, S2095-2546, 00095-9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Zhou, M.; Fukuoka, Y.; Mintz, Y.; Goldberg, K.; Kaminsky, P.; Flowers, E.; Aswani, A. Evaluating machine learning-based automated personalized daily step goals delivered through a mobile phone app: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2018, 6, e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Maher, C.A.; Davis, C.R.; Curtis, R.G.; Short, C.E.; Murphy, K.J. A physical activity and diet program delivered by artificially intelligent virtual health coach: Proof-of-concept study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2020, 8, e17558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lewin, S.; Glenton, C. Are We Entering a New Era for Qualitative Research? Using Qualitative Evidence to Support Guidance and Guideline Development by the World Health Organization. Int. J. Equity Health 2018, 17, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Nussbaum, M.C. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Key insights into the impact of digital technologies on sedentary and PA behaviors.
Table 1. Key insights into the impact of digital technologies on sedentary and PA behaviors.
TechnologyMain FindingsImplicationsFuture Directions
Wearable technologiesEnhance self-monitoring, awareness and motivation for PA. Reduce SB by providing real-time feedback and data on health metrics.Encourage active lifestyles and behavior change. Reduce health risks associated with inactivity.Integrate wearables further into holistic health systems for comprehensive health monitoring and feedback.
mHealth applicationsSupport continuous health monitoring and personalized feedback. Provide goal setting, structured programs and social features. Improve access to personalized health advice and exercise programs. Increase the likelihood of sustainable health behaviors.Enhance AI-driven personalization for dynamic and responsive interventions based on real-time health data and user feedback.
Extended reality technologiesProvide immersive experiences for PA. Uses VR, AR and MR for personalized interventions.Can overcome barriers to movement such as physical limitations and lack of motivation. Offers diverse and engaging PA options.Enhance XR for community-oriented training programs to improve social interactions during training sessions.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramalho, A.; Paulo, R.; Duarte-Mendes, P.; Serrano, J.; Petrica, J. Age Unplugged: A Brief Narrative Review on the Intersection of Digital Tools, Sedentary and Physical Activity Behaviors in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Healthcare 2024, 12, 935. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12090935

AMA Style

Ramalho A, Paulo R, Duarte-Mendes P, Serrano J, Petrica J. Age Unplugged: A Brief Narrative Review on the Intersection of Digital Tools, Sedentary and Physical Activity Behaviors in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Healthcare. 2024; 12(9):935. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12090935

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramalho, André, Rui Paulo, Pedro Duarte-Mendes, João Serrano, and João Petrica. 2024. "Age Unplugged: A Brief Narrative Review on the Intersection of Digital Tools, Sedentary and Physical Activity Behaviors in Community-Dwelling Older Adults" Healthcare 12, no. 9: 935. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12090935

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop