Older Adults’ Acceptance of Activity Trackers

Abstract

Objective To assess the usability and acceptance of activity tracking technologies by older adults. Method First in our multi-method approach, we conducted heuristic evaluations of two activity trackers that revealed potential usability barriers to acceptance. Next, questionnaires and interviews were administered to 16 older adults (Mage=70, SDage=3.09, rangeage= 65-75) before and after a 28-day field study to understand facilitators and additional barriers to acceptance. These measurements were supplemented with diary and usage data and assessed if and why users overcame usability issues. Results The heuristic evaluation revealed usability barriers in System Status Visibility; Error Prevention; and Consistency and Standards. The field study revealed additional barriers (e.g., accuracy, format), and acceptance-facilitators (e.g., goal-tracking, usefulness, encouragement). Discussion The acceptance of wellness management technologies, such as activity trackers, may be increased by addressing acceptance-barriers during deployment (e.g., providing tutorials on features that were challenging, communicating usefulness).

Explorations of wearable technology for tracking self and others

“…The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) provide insights into experience level influences and facilitators and barriers to the use of wearables in this study. Two important factors for user acceptance of technology are perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) (Davis et al 1989;Preusse et al 2016;Ma et al 2017;Venkatesh et al 2012). Perusse et al 's (2016) research found that lower PEOU and PU decreased the acceptance rate of wearables.…”

“…Perusse et al 's (2016) research found that lower PEOU and PU decreased the acceptance rate of wearables. Other problems and barriers to the use of wearable technology include weakness/lack of durability (Paul et al 2014;Wang et al 2016a, b), discomfort (Bowman et al 2016), invasive monitoring (Coorevits and Coenen 2016), inaccuracy (Kim et al 2007;Preusse et al 2016); limited designs (Colgan et al 2016;Tomberg et al 2015;Wang et al 2016a, b), cost (Donkin 2016), uselessness (Donkin 2016;Motti and Caine 2016) and difficulty of use (Coorevits and Coenen 2016). Researchers have endeavored to develop durable products that can withstand frequent washing or long-term use through methods such as coating the surface of the conductive materials or applying nanotechnologies (Paul et al 2014;Wang et al 2016a, b).…”

“…The tracked data can be used for treatment, can provide information about users to medical professionals or families, or can be used as aids for daily life. Since people's behaviors are the biggest barriers to health (Schüll 2016), wearables can encourage users in health self-management, self-efficacy, and healthy habits (Preusse et al 2016). Physical parameters such as HR, respirations, skin conductance level, and temperature can also be used to analyze users' psychological status including moods and feelings .…”

“…(Schüll 2016); (2) tracking dimensions for self: 'what dimensions of yourself would you like to track?' (Koo and Fallon 2017;Preusse et al 2016;Viseu and Suchman 2010); (3) knowing about others: what would you be interested to know about others? (Koo and Fallon 2017;Michaelis et al 2016); (4) sharing about self: what qualities do you wish the world knew about you?…”

“…The two questions about product design suggestions were asked: (1) what aspects do you like and dislike about current products? (Preusse et al 2016) and (2) do you have any suggestions for improving the design and function of current wearable products in the market? (Michaelis et al 2016;Preusse et al 2016).…”