# User Experience of Older People While Using Digital Health Technologies: A Systematic Review
## 2 Materials and Methods  
The methodology employed in this systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [33]. This systematic review has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42023418271). This systematic review of the literature was conducted in April 2023, utilizing data from PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Ichushi Web of Japanese journal databases. To ensure the inclusion of the latest evidence in the field, the present review analyzed manuscripts and articles published from 1 January 2013 to 31 March 2023. The selection of this time period was based on the progress and innovation observed in the field of digital health technology, as well as the corresponding brush-up on UX research methods. In formulating the inclusion criteria, the PICOS (P = population, I = interventions, C = comparator, O = outcome, S = study design) format was adopted.  
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) original research papers that utilized questionnaires to assess the UX of digital health technologies among older people; (2) papers describing the content of original or customized questionnaires used for UX evaluation; (3) papers with main targets aged \(\geq\)65 years. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) treview articles, protocols, conference papers, and reports; (2) papers lacking full-text availability; (3) papers that employed interviews for UX assessment; and (4) papers that assessed the UX of technologies related to specific diseases, such as cancer, surgical and radiological technologies, and oral hygiene. The targeted population for this review had no specific income-based restrictions.  
The search strategy employed four categories of keywords (Table 2), with the keywords within each category combined using the \"OR\" Boolean operator. Subsequently, to retrieve relevant papers, the results of these searches were combined using the \"AND\" Boolean operator. The search was limited to the Title/Abstract search field and filtered for articles available only in English or Japanese.  
Following the initial search, a total of 174 articles were identified from PubMed, with an additional 6 from Google Scholar and 4 from Ichushi Web. These findings underwent analysis and screening conducted by three experts from the research team, consisting of a rehabilitation medicine researcher and two engineering researchers. This collaborative effort allowed us to consider both geriatric and technical perspectives. The initial screening was based on the titles and abstracts of the identified articles. Subsequently, the same experts evaluated the full text of selected papers. In the case of conflicting opinions, consensus was reached through discussion among the three experts. Finally, a list of included papers was compiled.  
Data extraction involved collecting the following information from included papers: the first author's name, year of publication, evaluation questionnaire, details of the original  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Keywords** & & & \\ \hline Digital health technology & \begin{tabular}{l} User needs \\ User experience \\ Quality of experience \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{l} Evaluation \\ Assessment \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{l} Questionnaire \\ Scale \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Keywords used for the search strategy.  
or customized questionnaire employed, and the digital health technology under assessment. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequency and frequency percentages. Additionally, an investigation was conducted to determine whether the reliability and validity of the extracted questionnaires had been verified, whether manuals for these questionnaires were available, and whether benchmarks had been established.