JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Digital health tools are increasingly vital in rural healthcare due to widespread hospital closures and the rapid adoption of telehealth during COVID-19. Rural older adults, a uniquely vulnerable population, face barriers to accessing these tools due to rurality and usability challenges. Although a growing body of literature examines the acceptability and usability of digital tools among rural older adults, no study has synthesized this research to establish best practices.

Objective:

This study aims to review existing literature on digital health tools for rural older adults, highlighting key lessons learned about their acceptability and identifying strategies to improve usability for this population.

Methods:

Following the PRISMA guidelines, this study reviewed literature that investigated the role of digital health tools on the health outcomes of rural older adults (i.e., at least 60 years old). The literature was retrieved from five electronic databases through June 2023. Guided by a systematic process, two reviewers assessed relevant articles for eligibility, analyzed data, and extracted relevant content. The extracted findings were organized according to the evidence-based Technology Acceptance model, which assesses the acceptability of a technology by its usefulness, ease of use, and intention to use.

Results:

The preliminary title review produced 7728 results, and 39 eligible manuscripts were included in the final review. Studies included both rural older adults and providers of rural older adults as participants. Digital health tools included, but were not limited to, videoconferencing, phone calls, telehealth monitoring, telemedicine appointments, and computer-based interventions. Findings on the usefulness of digital health tools by rural older adults were mixed. While digital health tools were useful for overcoming barriers to accessing care, these tools were less useful for rural older adults with limited digital literacy. Additionally, some studies described that the technology was easy but difficult to use when faced with environmental barriers, equipment issues, and discomfort with the technology. Rural older adults often reported an intention to use the technology after the study. Yet, on a few occasions, participants who preferred in-person care visits or did not have buy-in on the technology, these participants reported no intention to use the technology again.

Conclusions:

Our review highlights that rural older adults and their providers generally view digital health tools as acceptable for delivering care and, in some cases, as a viable alternative to in-person clinic visits. While certain barriers impacted the acceptance of these tools among rural older adults, many of these challenges were not directly linked to their age or rural location; thus, they are potentially applicable to urban older adults. Clinical Trial: The protocol was registered post hoc in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42021287924 at www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).