4.7 Article

The attitudes, impact, and learning needs of older adults using apps on touchscreen mobile devices: Results from a pilot study

期刊

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
卷 63, 期 -, 页码 189-197

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.020

关键词

Touchscreen mobile device; Mobile applications (apps); Older adults; Technology acceptance model; Diffusion of innovation theory; Mixed-method approach

资金

  1. Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare [MOHW104-HPA-H-114-123107]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the proliferation in understanding older adults' acceptance and limitations of Internet technology, the learning needs of older adults living in low Internet usage areas and their acceptance of touchscreen-based apps have lagged behind. This study describes an embedded mixed-method research evaluation of an eight-week touchscreen mobile device training for thirty-pine older adults who were recruited from a community center in a low Internet usage area in southern Taiwan. Among the participants, 20 completed both the pre-test and the post-test and 16 attended the focus group interviews. The design of the training course was based on constructs informed by the diffusion of innovation theory and the technology acceptance model, and it incorporated both a classroom-based and small group tutoring approach. After the training session, the participants reported significantly lower depressive symptom scores compared to baseline. Qualitative interviews reveal the participants' learning needs related to extended practice, usefulness, and compatibility in adopting touch-screen apps. Findings from this study shed light on the possibility of touchscreen-based apps, including health-, entertainment-, transportation-, and social media-related apps, for improving psychological well-being in older adults with limited Internet experience living in the community. Discussion on their learning needs was also provided. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据