Art and Design
Art and Design
ISSN 2617-0272 e-ISSN 2617-0280
DOI: 10.30857/2617-0272
Submit an article

Article

Download article

Inclusive design strategies for older users of digital healthcare services

Yi Liu, Alla Rubanka

Received 10.11.2025, Revised 23.02.2026, Accepted 09.04.2026 Published 10.04.2026

Abstract

Digital health applications have become routine tools for older adults to register appointments, pay medical fees and purchase medicines, yet many interfaces still impose heavy cognitive and operational demands. This study aimed to identify information-processing barriers faced by older adults when using the Chinese mobile health app Chunyu Doctor and to propose stage-based interface improvement strategies. 16 adults aged 60-70 years with prior experience of health apps completed semi-structured, one-on-one interviews while performing consultation, medication purchase and insurance settlement tasks. Interview transcripts were coded thematically and mapped onto three stages of interaction: perception, cognition and execution. The analysis revealed that perception barriers arise from dense screens, weak text and icon legibility, ambiguous tappable areas and hardly noticeable audio prompts. Cognitive barriers involved technical terminology that exceeds immediate comprehension, icon metaphors that do not reliably signal function, and section structures that conflict with users’ task logic. Execution barriers centre on difficulty locating key functions, demanding gesture operations, lengthy branched flows and tight time limits in steps such as verification codes. On this basis, the study proposed stage-specific design strategies that reorganise navigation around medical tasks, rewrite critical text in plain language, adjust icon sets and grouping, and relax temporal and feedback constraints. The results offer a process-based reference for evaluating and improving age-friendly interaction in digital health services


Keywords:

information processing model; interaction barriers; aging-friendly design; cognitive load; user interface

https://doi.org/10.30857/2617-0272.2026.1.5

Retrieved from Vol. 9, No. 1, 2026

Pages 55-64

References Suggested citation

References

  1. Amouzadeh, E., Dianat, I., Faradmal, J., & Babamiri, M. (2025). Optimizing mobile app design for older adults: Systematic review of age-friendly design. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 37, article number 248. doi: 10.1007/s40520-025-03157-7.
  2. Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics. (2022). Smartphones gradually integrating into older adults’ lives: 2022 survey on smartphone use habits and attitudes among older adults in Beijing. Retrieved from https://tjj.beijing.gov.cn/zxfbu/202211/t20221108_2854080.html.
  3. Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Boea Raton: CRC Press.
  4. Chunyu Doctor. (2025). Retrieved from https://www.chunyuyisheng.com/.
  5. Gomez-Hernandez, M., Ferre, X., Moral, C., & Villalba-Mora, E. (2023). Design guidelines of mobile apps for older adults: Systematic review and thematic analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 11, article number e43186. doi: 10.2196/43186.
  6. Harrington, C.N., Ruzic, L., & Sanford, J.A. (2017). Universally accessible mHealth apps for older adults: Towards increasing adoption and sustained engagement. In M. Antona & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), Universal access in human-computer interaction. Human and Technological Environments (pp. 3-12). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-58700-4_1.
  7. Huawei. (2025). Huawei Vision Smart Screen 5. Retrieved from https://consumer.huawei.com/cn/visions/huawei-vision/5/.
  8. Khamaj, A., & Ali, M.A. (2024). Examining the usability and accessibility challenges in mobile health applications for older adults. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 102, 179-191. doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2024.06.002.
  9. Kirkscey, R. (2020). mHealth apps for older adults: A method for development and user experience design evaluation. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(2), 199-217. doi: 10.1177/0047281620907939.
  10. Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly. (2018, December). Retrieved from https://www.gov.cn/guoqing/2021-10/29/content_5647622.htm.
  11. Li, Q., & Luximon, Y. (2019). Older adults’ use of mobile device: Usability challenges while navigating various interfaces. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(8), 837-861. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1622786.
  12. Mattick, X., Dogangün, A., Boadu, J., Jansen, N., & Meske, C. (2025). Design for older people: Improving the usability of mobile apps through targeted design recommendations. In Proceedings of the 36th Australasian conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 147-158). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
  13. McCarthy, B., Sabharwal, J.K., & Chawla, S. (2024). Old age or cognitive decline? Examining the usability of a mobile health app for older Australians. Informatics for Health & Social Care, 49(1), 83-97. doi: 10.1080/17538157.2024.2332691.
  14. Okuhara, T., Furukawa, E., Okada, H., & Kiuchi, T. (2024). Readability of online and offline written health information: A protocol of a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMJ Open, 14(12), article number e079756. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079756.
  15. Phiriyapokanon, T. (2011). Is a big button interface enough for elderly users? Towards user interface guidelines for elderly users. Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
  16. Septiani, W., Rahmawatil, N., Safitril, D.M., & Luis, M. (2024). Usability evaluation for mobile health application: Systematic literature review. Sinergi, 28(2), 287-304. doi: 10.22441/sinergi.2024.2.009.
  17. Shi, A., Huo, F., & Han, D. (2021). Role of interface design: A comparison of different online learning system designs. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, article number 681756. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.681756.
  18. The Declaration of Helsinki. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/.
  19. Tsai, T.-H., Tseng, C.K., & Chang, Y.-S. (2017). Testing the usability of smartphone surface gestures on different sizes of smartphones by different age groups of users. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 103-116. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.013.
  20. Wang, Q., Liu, J., Zhou, L., Tian, J., Chen, X., Zhang, W., Wang, H., Zhou, W., & Gao, Y. (2022). Usability evaluation of mHealth apps for elderly individuals: A scoping review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 22(1), article number 317. doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-02064-5.
  21. Wildenbos, G.A., Jaspers, M.W.M., Schijven, M.P., & Dusseljee-Peute, L.W. (2019). Mobile health for older adult patients: Using an aging barriers framework to classify usability problems. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 124, 68-77. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.01.006.
  22. Wu, J., Jiao, D., Lu, C., Li, C., Huang, X., & Weng, S. (2022). How do older adults process icons in visual search tasks? The combined effects of icon type and cognitive aging. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8), article number 4525. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19084525.
  23. Xiaomi Smart band watch face settings interface. (2024). Retrieved from https://surl.li/umdpic.
  24. Ye, J., Han, Y., Li, W., & Yang, C. (2025). Visual selective attention analysis for elderly friendly fresh E-commerce product interfaces. Applied Sciences, 15(8), article number 4470. doi: 10.3390/app15084470.
  25. Yeh, P.-C. (2020). Impact of button position and touchscreen font size on healthcare device operation by older adults. Heliyon, 6(6), article number e04147. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04147.
  26. Zhou, C., Yuan, F., Huang, T., Zhang, Y., & Kaner, J. (2022). The impact of interface design element features on task performance in older adults: Evidence from eye-tracking and EEG signals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(15), article number 9251. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159251.

Suggested citation

Liu, Y., & Rubanka, A. (2026). Inclusive design strategies for older users of digital healthcare services. Art and Design, 9(1), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.30857/2617-0272.2026.1.5