In the study "Acceptance of Commercially Available Wearable Activity Trackers Among

Adults Aged Over 50 and With Chronic Illness: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation" by Mercer
et al. (2016), the researchers found that while older adults with chronic illnesses generally
accept wearable activity trackers, several barriers to adoption exist, such as technical
challenges and concerns about data accuracy.
Question: Based on the findings of this study, what strategies would you recommend to
improve the adoption and sustained use of wearable activity trackers among older adults
with chronic illnesses? Consider factors such as device design, user education, and
personalization. How can healthcare providers and technology developers work together to
address these barriers and enhance the overall user experience? Please support your
recommendations with examples from the study or other relevant research you may be
familiar with.

Mercer et al. (2016) concluded in their study that wearable activity trackers like Fitbit had
potential as an intervention to increase activity levels in older adults with chronic diseases.
However, the potential use of these devices was hindered by several factors, including the older
adult’s perceptions of the device and its usefulness; the older adult’s motivation and readiness to
change; and the complexities of the wearable activity tracker devices (Mercer et al., 2016). The
researchers found that these barriers could be overcome with different strategies. The study
recommended making the wearable activity trackers more user-friendly for older adults.
Technology developers and manufacturers can make these devices more user-friendly by
providing paper instruction manuals for the less technologically savvy older adult, making the
device screens larger, simplifying the user interface, and adding high-contrast displays which are
especially useful for older adults with poor vision (Mercer et al., 2016). The study also found that
participants preferred different devices for varying reasons like comfort and cost (Mercer et al.,
2016). Therefore, individual preference and user perception should be considered when
recommending wearable activity trackers to encourage long-term and consistent use. Clinicians
and developers should also consider the importance of education for any patient/client
intervention. The product developers should ensure that clinicians have educational materials
like brochures and sample devices to educate older adults on the use of these devices. Clinicians
can use these tools and effective teaching methods like teach-back and return demonstrations to
make older adults more comfortable and accepting of the use of trackers to manage their activity
levels (Talevski et al., 2020). To improve the sustained use of a wearable tracker, clinicians
should also assess the older adult’s readiness to use a device to manage their activity level and
chronic disease. Based on the results of the readiness to change assessment, the clinician should
be prepared to engage in motivational interviewing to resolve any personal barriers and
misconceptions that the older adult may have about using the tracker. Research shows that
motivational interviewing is an effective method of helping patients make positive changes in
their health status (Matthews et al., 2024).

References

Matthews, J. A., Matthews, S., Faries, M. D., & Wolever, R. Q. (2024). Supporting sustainable
health behavior change: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Mayo Clinic proceedings.
Innovations, quality & outcomes, 8(3), 263–275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.10.002

Mercer, K., Giangregorio, L., Schneider, E., Chilana, P., Li, M., & Grindrod, K. (2016).
Acceptance of commercially available wearable activity trackers among adults aged over 50 and
with chronic illness: A mixed-methods evaluation. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 4(1), e7.
https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.4225

Talevski, J., Wong Shee, A., Rasmussen, B., Kemp, G., & Beauchamp, A. (2020). Teach-back: A
systematic review of implementation and impacts. PloS one, 15(4), e0231350.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231350

The systematic review "Health Information Technology Continues to Show Positive Effect
on Medical Outcomes" by Kruse and Beane (2018) highlights the significant benefits of
health information technology (HIT) in improving patient safety, healthcare efficiency, and
overall medical outcomes. However, the review also identifies several barriers to the
successful implementation of HIT, such as high costs, resistance to change, and
interoperability issues.
Question: Reflecting on the findings of this review, what do you believe are the most critical
challenges that healthcare organizations face in implementing health information
technology effectively? How can these challenges be addressed to maximize the positive
impact of HIT on patient outcomes? Additionally, consider the role of healthcare
professionals, administrators, and policymakers in overcoming these barriers. What
strategies would you propose to ensure the successful adoption and integration of HIT in
various healthcare settings?
Please share your thoughts and provide examples or insights from the review or other
related studies.

According to Kruse and Beane (2018), there is strong research evidence that health
information technology (HIT) has a positive effect on improved medical outcomes. However,
many healthcare organizations still face challenges in successfully implementing HIT. The cost
of implementing HIT is a major barrier for many health organizations, especially smaller
organizations like provider-owned private practices (Galavi et al., 2022). Companies, before
implementing HIT, must consider the cost of purchasing and integrating the HIT with current
infrastructure. The organization must also consider the costs of training staff and maintaining the
technology in the future (Galavi et al., 2022). According to the Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality (n.d.), HIT can cost millions of dollars to implement based on hospital size and
existing technology infrastructure. The organizational culture can also be a roadblock to HIT
implementation in a healthcare organization. Many organizations have a culture that is resistant
to change, where staff may lack motivation to change or perceive that the HIT will be a burden
and result in more work (Poon et al., 2021). Another barrier to the implementation of HIT is the
knowledge and skills of the end-user of the HIT. HIT will be burdensome and inefficient if staff
do not have the knowledge or skill-set on how to use HIT (Galavi et al., 2022). This can occur
especially in situations where users were not properly trained or not enough time was devoted to
incorporating the HIT into the existing organizational structure.
The barriers faced by healthcare organizations successfully implementing HIT will
require strategies at all levels, ranging from organizational to governmental levels. Organizations
must involve all the stakeholders in their HIT implementation process. This will ensure that
everyone impacted by the HIT can provide feedback, understand the reasons for HIT
implementation, and are motivated to make the change (Poon et al., 2021). The organization
should also ensure that end-users and other staff are properly trained to use HIT and have proper
technical and organizational support when needed (Galavi et al., 2022). Smaller organization
administrators where high cost remains a barrier to HIT should also consider making affiliations
with larger organizations to help them manage the cost of HIT. These affiliations to cover HIT
costs and expertise can currently be seen throughout New York, where small private practices
have affiliated themselves with larger systems like Northwell and New York Presbyterian
Healthcare. It will also be important for policymakers and lawmakers to continue to pass
legislation and offer incentives that favor the continued use of HIT in healthcare (Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, n.d.).

Hello Markson:

Thank you for your contribution to this week’s discussion. I agree that poor training can hinder
the implementation of HIT in a healthcare organization. Poor training means that the staff using
the HIT will not have the knowledge and skills needed to use the technology in a meaningful
way to help their patients and improve patient health outcomes. I have seen many instances
where staff bypass crucial screens on the EMR simply because they don’t know how to access
the option. Similarly, I have observed where poor HIT training has resulted in staff reverting to
the use of non-evidence-based “old ways” when they are unable to figure out new equipment,
software, and other technologies. These practices due to poor HIT training usually are costly to
the organization and can lead to poor patient outcomes like medication errors, delayed
discharges, readmissions, and even death. It is, therefore, important that health organizations
invest time and money to properly train staff to ensure the successful implementation of any HIT
in the healthcare organization. According to Galavi et al. (2022), organizations should have
effective HIT training and technical support in place for end-users before launching any HIT to
ensure its successful implementation.

References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.). Barriers to HIT implementation.
https://digital.ahrq.gov/barriers-hit-implementation
Galavi, Z., Montazeri, M., & Ahmadian, L. (2022). Barriers and challenges of using health
information technology in home care: A systematic review. The International journal of health
planning and management, 37(5), 2542–2568. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3492

Kruse, C. S., & Beane, A. (2018). Health information technology continues to show positive
effect on medical outcomes: Systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research, 20(2), e41.
https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8793

Poon, E. G., Trent Rosenbloom, S., & Zheng, K. (2021). Health information technology and
clinician burnout: Current understanding, emerging solutions, and future directions. Journal of
the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 28(5), 895–898.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocab058