# User Experience of Older People While Using Digital Health Technologies: A Systematic Review
## 4 Discussion
Customized questionnaires have been developed based on the theoretical frameworks of the TMT, Almere model, and TFI. These frameworks primarily focus on understanding the acceptability of digital technology rather than the user experience. This distinction is crucial because acceptability assessments primarily investigate factors influencing the decision to adopt and use technology, such as perceived usefulness and ease of use, which are essential for technology adoption. On the other hand, user experience assessments delve deeper into the subjective aspects of interaction with technology, including emotional responses, satisfaction, and usability. [PERSON] et al. (2022) reported that they developed a generic theoretical framework of acceptability questionnaires that can be adapted to assess the acceptability of any healthcare intervention [79]. Assessing acceptability might help identify characteristics of interventions that may be improved. In conclusion, this systematic review highlights the prevalent use of standardized questionnaires for evaluating the UX of digital health technologies among older people. In these questionnaires, the SUS emerged as the most frequently employed tool, underscoring its popularity and effectiveness in assessing usability. Its simplicity, wide applicability, and availability of benchmarks make it a valuable choice for evaluating digital healthcaretechnologies. Additionally, the high correlation observed between the SUS and UEQ suggests their complementary use for a comprehensive understanding of UX. Furthermore, several other specialized questionnaires were utilized, each tailored to assess specific aspects of usability and user satisfaction, including user acceptability as a main focus based on theoretical frameworks. These tailored approaches emphasize the importance of aligning UX assessment with theoretical frameworks and considering user acceptability, providing a holistic approach to evaluating digital health technologies for older people. This study has several limitations. First, the scope of this review was limited to studies published in English or Japanese, potentially excluding valuable research conducted in other languages. Moreover, the exclusion of papers lacking a full text and those employing interviews for UX assessment might have led to the omission of relevant studies. Second, the focus on older people might limit the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. Third, the evolving landscape of digital health technologies necessitates continued research and updates to encompass the latest developments. Finally, the psychometric properties of some questionnaires and their applicability to diverse cultural contexts require further investigation to enhance their validity and reliability in assessing UX among older people. [PERSON] designed this study, conducted the data collection, and drafted the manuscript. [PERSON] performed the data analysis and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] assisted in the data collection, conducted the literature review, and contributed to the manuscript editing. [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] provided expertise in digital health technologies and reviewed and edited the manuscript for subject-specific content. [PERSON] reviewed and critiqued the manuscript, provided valuable intellectual input, and supervised the project. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research is based on data collected for a project funded by the \"Knowledge Hub Aichi\", Priority Research Project IV from the Aichi Prefectural Government in September 2022. No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article. The authors declare no conflict of interest.