Terms of Engagement: Understanding the Motivations, Preferences, and Attitudes of Older Adults Toward Mobile Cognitive Assessment and Training

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The future of cognitive assessment is likely to involve mobile applications for smartphones and tablets; cognitive training is also often delivered in these formats. Unfortunately, low adherence to these programs can hinder efforts at the early detection of cognitive decline and interfere with examining cognitive training efficacy in clinical trials. We explored factors that increase adherence to these programs among older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with older adults (N = 21) and a younger adult comparison group (N = 21). Data were processed using reflexive thematic analysis with an inductive, bottom-up approach. RESULTS: Three primary themes related to adherence were developed from the focus group data. Switches of engagement reflects factors that must be present; without them, engagement is unlikely. Dials of engagement reflects a cost-benefit analysis that users undergo, the outcome of which determines whether a person will be more or less likely to engage. Bracers of engagement reflects factors that nudge users toward engagement by minimizing barriers associated with the other themes. Older adults in general were more sensitive to opportunity costs, preferred more cooperative interactions, and were more likely to mention technology barriers. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results are important for informing the design of mobile cognitive assessment and training apps for older adults. These themes provide guidance about ways apps could be modified to increase engagement and adherence, which in turn can more effectively facilitate the early detection of cognitive impairment and the evaluation of cognitive training efficacy.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.