skip to main content
10.1145/3517428.3550411acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesassetsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Supporting Physical Activity in Later Life: Perspectives from Older Adults

Published: 22 October 2022 Publication History

Abstract

The older population, especially those living alone, is less likely to meet recommended physical activity levels than other age groups and deserves more attention in this era of population ageing. However, existing technologies for supporting physical activity have been generally poorly aligned with the needs of older adults. Reasons for such problem are manifold, including the lack of involving older adults in design and evaluation, prevalent technology-driven perspectives, and the complexity of designing behavior change technology. Therefore, this research project aims to investigate how to better design behavior change technology to support the needs of older adults living alone for physical activity, which will address four main aspects: meeting user needs, investigating the rationale of technology design, improving co-design practice, and evaluating designed technology. To this end, this project will employ a human-centered iterative design methodology and actively involve the target group in the design process to let their voices heard and incorporated in design. This research will not only contribute to a deeper understanding towards the needs and preferences of this insufficiently studied group, but also identify implications for improving co-design practices as well as design opportunities for future behavior change technology.

References

[1]
F. Sun, I. J. Norman, and A. E. While, “Physical activity in older people: A systematic review,” BMC Public Health, vol. 13, no. 1, 2013.
[2]
M. Yamada, Y. Kimura, D. Ishiyama, Y. Otobe, M. Suzuki, S. Koyama, T. Kikuchi, H. Kusumi, and H. Arai, “The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical Activity and New Incidence of Frailty among Initially Non-Frail Older Adults in Japan: A Follow-Up Online Survey,” Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 751-756, 2021.
[3]
C. Y. Yu, S. I. Hou, and J. Miller, “Health for older adults: The role of social capital and leisure-time physical activity by living arrangements,” Journal of Physical Activity and Health, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 150-158, 2018.
[4]
C. LeRouge, C. Van Slyke, D. Seale, and K. Wright, “Baby Boomers' adoption of consumer health technologies: Survey on readiness and barriers,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 16, no. 9, 2014.
[5]
C. Caldeira, and Y. Chen, "Seniors and self-tracking technology," Perspectives on human-computer interaction research with older people, pp. 67-79: Springer, 2019.
[6]
D. Vargemidis, K. Gerling, V. V. Abeele, L. Geurts, and K. Spiel, “Irrelevant Gadgets or a Source of Worry: Exploring Wearable Activity Trackers with Older Adults,” ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1-28, 2021.
[7]
V. L. Hanson, “Influencing technology adoption by older adults,” Interacting with Computers, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 502-509, 2010.
[8]
H. Kavandi, and M. Jaana, “Factors that affect health information technology adoption by seniors: A systematic review,” Health and Social Care in the Community, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1827-1842, 2020.
[9]
A. S. Melenhorst, W. A. Rogers, and D. G. Bouwhuis, “Older adults' motivated choice for technological innovation: Evidence for benefit-driven selectivity,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 190-195, 2006.
[10]
M. Cabrita, H. op den Akker, M. Tabak, H. J. Hermens, and M. M. R. Vollenbroek-Hutten, “Persuasive technology to support active and healthy ageing: An exploration of past, present, and future,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 84, pp. 17-30, 2018.
[11]
K. van Turnhout, J. Jeurens, M. Verhey, P. Wientjes, and R. Bakker, “The healthy elderly: Case studies in persuasive design,” Interaction Design and Architecture(s), vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 160-172, 2014.
[12]
R. Orji, and K. Moffatt, “Persuasive technology for health and wellness: State-of-the-art and emerging trends,” Health Informatics Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 66-91, 2018.
[13]
K. Gerling, M. Ray, V. V. Abeele, and A. B. Evans, “Critical reflections on technology to support physical activity among older adults: An exploration of leading HCI venues,” ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-23, 2020.
[14]
H. W. J. Rittel, and M. M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning,” Policy Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 155-169, 1973.
[15]
B. Fischer, A. Peine, B. Östlund, and P. C. Heyn, “The Importance of User Involvement: A Systematic Review of Involving Older Users in Technology Design,” Gerontologist, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. E513-E523, 2020.
[16]
World Health Organization. "Physical activity," https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity.
[17]
M. C. Ashe, W. C. Miller, J. J. Eng, and L. Noreau, “Older adults, chronic disease and leisure-time physical activity,” Gerontology, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 64-72, 2009.
[18]
S. L. Szanton, R. K. Walker, L. Roberts, R. J. Thorpe, J. Wolff, E. Agree, D. L. Roth, L. N. Gitlin, and C. Seplaki, “Older adults' favorite activities are resoundingly active: Findings from the NHATS study,” Geriatric Nursing, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 131-135, 2015.
[19]
Government of Canada. "Action for Seniors report," 2021; https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/seniors-action-report.html.
[20]
B. Elsawy, and K. E. Higgins, “Physical activity guidelines for older adults,” American family physician, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 55-59, 2010.
[21]
S. Lindsay, D. Jackson, G. Schofield, and P. Olivier, “Engaging older people using participatory design,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, Texas, USA, 2012, pp. 1199–1208.
[22]
J. O. Prochaska, and W. F. Velicer, “The transtheoretical model of health behavior change,” American journal of health promotion, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 38-48, 1997.
[23]
W. R. Boot, N. Charness, S. J. Czaja, J. Sharit, W. A. Rogers, A. D. Fisk, T. Mitzner, C. C. Lee, and S. Nair, “Computer proficiency questionnaire: Assessing low and high computer proficient seniors,” Gerontologist, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 404-411, 2015.
[24]
N. A. Roque, and W. R. Boot, “A New Tool for Assessing Mobile Device Proficiency in Older Adults: The Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire,” Journal of Applied Gerontology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 131-156, 2018.
[25]
C. Moret-Tatay, M. J. Beneyto-Arrojo, E. Gutierrez, W. R. Boot, and N. Charness, “A Spanish adaptation of the computer and mobile device proficiency questionnaires (CPQ and MDPQ) for older adults,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 10, no. MAY, 2019.
[26]
J. Lazar, J. H. Feng, and H. Hochheiser, Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction: Wiley, 2010.
[27]
A. Bhattacharya, C. Liang, E. Y. Zeng, K. Shukla, M. E. R. Wong, S. A. Munson, and J. A. Kientz, "Engaging teenagers in asynchronous online groups to design for stress management." pp. 26-37.
[28]
J. Zimmerman, J. Forlizzi, and S. Evenson, "Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI." pp. 493–502.
[29]
J. Brooke, “SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale,” Usability evaluation in industry, vol. 189, no. 194, pp. 4-7, 1996.

Index Terms

  1. Supporting Physical Activity in Later Life: Perspectives from Older Adults
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ASSETS '22: Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
      October 2022
      902 pages
      ISBN:9781450392587
      DOI:10.1145/3517428
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 22 October 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Conference

      ASSETS '22
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      ASSETS '22 Paper Acceptance Rate 35 of 132 submissions, 27%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 436 of 1,556 submissions, 28%

      Upcoming Conference

      ASSETS '25

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 101
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)38
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
      Reflects downloads up to 15 Feb 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Figures

      Tables

      Media

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media