Co-Designing a Digital Brain Health Intervention for Chinese Older Adults: A User-Centred Approach.

Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Australas J Ageing . 2026 Apr 13;45(2):e70164. doi: 10.1111/ajag.70164 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Co‐Designing a Digital Brain Health Intervention for Chinese Older Adults: A User‐Centred Approach Joyce Siette Joyce Siette 1 The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia Find articles by Joyce Siette 1, ✉ , Siyao Cheng Siyao Cheng 1 The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia Find articles by Siyao Cheng 1 , Jed Montayre Jed Montayre 1 The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia 2 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, School of Nursing and WHO Collaborating Centre for Community Services, Kowloon, Hong Kong Find articles by Jed Montayre 1, 2 , Laura Dodds Laura Dodds 1 The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia Find articles by Laura Dodds 1 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia 2 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, School of Nursing and WHO Collaborating Centre for Community Services, Kowloon, Hong Kong * Correspondence: Joyce Siette ( [email protected] ) ✉ Corresponding author. Revised 2026 Mar 11; Received 2025 Jan 3; Accepted 2026 Apr 2; Issue date 2026 Jun. © 2026 The Author(s). Australasian Journal on Ageing published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of AJA Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13074143  PMID: 41972835 ABSTRACT Objectives This study aimed to co‐design, with key stakeholders, a digital dementia risk reduction application (app) for Chinese older migrant adults and carers residing in Australia, and to address the challenges of this proposed intervention. Methods A four‐stage co‐design process was conducted, followed by one usability testing session. Each workshop focussed on core domains of healthy ageing and included guided discussions, interactive app testing and structured feedback activities. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. The app prototype was refined between sessions and changes were guided by participant feedback. Results A total of 20 end‐users and 18 usability testers participated in this study (mean age = 74.8 years, SD = 8.2, range = 61–89). Participants expressed strong preferences for culturally tailored, interactive and visually clear app features. Eight themes emerged: health prioritisation in later life, designing for simplicity, functional needs in brain health testing, goal setting and motivation, brain training preferences, dietary preferences, preventive health monitoring and trusted medical information, and iterative design feedback. Older adults demonstrated high receptivity to health tracking and goal setting features when framed as personally relevant and adjustable. Feedback informed design features such as icon clarity, font size, navigation simplicity, motivational rewards and culturally specific content. Conclusions This study highlighted the importance of co‐design in developing effective digital tools for older adults. The active involvement of Chinese older adults in shaping the app supported cultural sensitivity, usability and individual motivational alignment. The final prototype reflected both sociotechnical responsiveness and real‐world relevance and offers a potential, scalable model for culturally‐tailored digital health interventions. Keywords: aged, Chinese, ethnicity, health services accessibility, mobile applications, usability testing, user‐centered design Policy Impact This study demonstrates the value of participatory co‐design in developing culturally‐tailored digital brain health interventions. By engaging Chinese older migrant adults and caregivers, it produced a user‐centric application prototype that addresses brain health and dementia risk reduction. Our approach highlights the importance of creating culturally‐specific solutions for promoting healthy ageing. 1. Introduction Despite extensive biomedical research over the past several decades, no curative treatment for dementia currently exists [ 1 ]. In response, the World Health Organization and other leading public health agencies have shifted the strategic focus towards prevention and risk reduction as primary tools to counteract the dementia epidemic [ 2 , 3 ]. In Australia, an estimated 40% of clinical dementia cases may be preventable through the modification of factors such as physical and cognitive inactivity, poor sleep hygiene, cardiovascular risk and limited social engagement [ 4 , 5 ]. These factors represent a critical point of intervention, particularly during mid‐to‐late life, where population‐level strategies can meaningfully delay or reduce dementia incidence [ 6 , 7 ]. However, the promise of prevention is not equitably distributed. Australia is a striking example of how demographic diversity intersects with health disparities. More than one‐third (37%) of older Australians are born overseas, with individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds often underrepresented in dementia research due to language, cultural or logistical barriers [ 8 ]. This exclusion creates systemic gaps in the evidence base and limits the applicability of mainstream interventions across diverse populations [ 7 ]. Among CALD communities, older adults of Chinese background represent a particularly understudied population. Current population estimates indicate that the population aged 65 years and over born in Southern and Eastern Asia, including China, is projected to experience a sevenfold increase to 1.5 million by 2056 in Australia [ 9 ]. Despite this rapid demographic growth, research consistently shows that older Chinese adults have comparatively lower levels of dementia literacy, hold more stigmatising attitudes towards the condition and tend to seek diagnosis and care later in the disease trajectory [ 10 ]. Although international dementia initiatives have begun to adapt evidence‐based programs for implementation within Chinese communities [ 11 , 12 ], few interventions have positioned dementia risk reduction as a primary outcome. Efforts to promote prevention further remain underdeveloped in both scope and accessibility, especially in digital formats. Community uptake of dementia risk reduction behaviours depends not only on individual awareness but also on cultural acceptability, perceived relevance and access to trustworthy, actionable information [ 7 , 10 , 13 , 14 ]. To bridge these gaps, a renewed focus on culturally tailored dementia risk reduction tools is needed. Digital technology, particularly smartphone applications (apps), may offer unique advantages in scalability, adaptability and personalisation, as well as existing familiarity [ 15 , 16 ]. Unlike conventional methods designed to promote cognitive health, which often rely on resource‐intensive, face‐to‐face delivery models and presuppose cultural familiarity with Western medical frameworks, digital app‐based interventions can provide discreet, user‐centred and contextually responsive engagement [ 15 , 16 ]. Older CALD adults can experience limited digital and health literacy, particularly when navigating English‐centric service models and applications [ 16 ]. Mobile technologies may thus offer an adaptable, low‐threshold access point for preventive care, with CALD older adults already using technology for social support and for monitoring health, leisure and daily routines [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. The theoretical foundation for such digital interventions is grounded in established behaviour change paradigms, including the Health Belief Model [ 20 ], Social Cognitive Theory [ 21 ] and the Transtheoretical Model [ 22 ], which generally emphasise the role of perceived susceptibility, self‐efficacy and readiness for change in health behaviour adoption. In the last decade, the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) has been developed based on these underlying theories as a diagnostic tool for defining the needs of a population and how to address them with specific intervention functions [ 23 , 24 ]. These frameworks have informed successful multi‐domain interventions including FINGER [ 25 ], pre‐DIVA [ 26 ] and MAPT [ 27 ], which target multiple modifiable factors (e.g., physical activity, diet, cognitive training, social engagement) to delay cognitive decline. While these interventions have demonstrated efficacy, their cultural applicability remains limited. Participants from non‐English‐speaking backgrounds are markedly underrepresented, and the interventions themselves are seldom adapted to reflect diverse cultural health narratives, practices or help‐seeking behaviours [ 25 , 26 , 28 ]. Most digital tools developed from these paradigms have emerged from Western epistemologies of health and ageing, often without sufficient attention to the structural, cultural and linguistic contexts that shape engagement in non‐Western populations. Compounding this issue is a lack of transparency in the reporting of design processes, particularly in relation to participatory co‐design methods that meaningfully involve older adults in intervention development [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Consequently, most digital health solutions fail to account for the needs and preferences of CALD communities and reinforce existing inequities in access to preventive care, which can contribute to lower uptake and intervention efficacy among these groups. A methodical approach to developing, testing and validating culturally appropriate digital interventions is thus essential. There remains a paucity of research documenting the formative and iterative processes used in designing health apps for older adults from diverse backgrounds [ 15 , 16 ]. Without this foundation, digital tools risk reproducing the very disparities they are intended to mitigate. This study responded to these challenges by co‐designing and testing a culturally and linguistically tailored app‐based intervention aimed at promoting cognitive health and reducing dementia risk among older adults of Chinese heritage living in Australia. Specifically, our objectives were twofold [ 1 ] to co‐design a digital behaviour change intervention with older Chinese Australians to promote dementia risk reduction through modifiable lifestyle practices; and [ 2 ] to evaluate the usability and cultural acceptability of the co‐designed intervention. 2. Methods 2.1. Study Design This study employed a qualitative, participatory design‐based approach grounded in principles of co‐design and user‐centred development [ 32 ] to co‐create a digital app to promote cognitive health. This study received ethical approval from Western Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee ( H14896 ) and adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines [ 33 ]. 2.2. Participants Eligible participants were aged over 60 years, residing in Australia, and fluent in Mandarin or Cantonese. The decision to include individuals aged over 60 years was based on existing research indicating earlier onset of age‐related health disparities among CALD communities [ 15 , 34 ] and to align with early intervention strategies for dementia risk reduction [ 6 ]. The sample was intentionally focused on first‐generation migrants, defined as individuals born outside of Australia and having lived in Australia for at least 5 years. 2.3. Sampling and Recruitment A purposive sampling strategy was employed. Recruitment was conducted through community organisations, institutional invitation and community events. All participants were screened for eligibility, and participation was entirely voluntary. Interested individuals received a translated information sheet and provided written informed consent prior to proceeding with the workshops, which were conducted in their local community hall. Demographic information (age, gender, country of birth, educational, marital and employment status and residential postcode) was collected. Postcode data were subsequently used to determine socioeconomic status (SES) using the Socio‐Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) and the Index of Relative Socio‐economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) [ 35 , 36 ]. Guided by previous co‐design methodologies [ 37 ], the target sample size was 15–20 participants per workshop. Participants received an e‐gift card (AUD$20) for each workshop attended. Participants could attend as many or as few workshops as desired. 2.4. Co‐Design Workshops The co‐design process followed an adapted version of a participatory health technology development model, whilst considering the barriers and facilitators to digital health among CALD populations [ 16 , 38 ], and incorporated elements of scenario mapping and behaviour change theory [ 23 , 39 ]. Participants were invited to attend four separate workshops and a usability testing session between February and March 2023, with each meeting lasting approximately 90 min. Each workshop was facilitated by a bilingual researcher and a knowledge translation researcher, and commenced with a review of the agenda, reinstatement of the purpose and summary of the prior workshop discussion and findings (if relevant). At the end, the app prototype was shared and feedback sought. Workshops 1–2 focussed on eliciting perspectives about ageing, brain health and lifestyle behaviours, whilst 3 and 4 involved preliminary interactions with early‐stage app mock‐ups. Specifics regarding the workshops' content are described in more detail in Supporting Information . Participants took part in a usability testing session employing a think‐aloud protocol [ 40 ] to verbalise their thoughts, reactions and decision‐making processes while interacting with early design prototypes. Participants were also introduced to the Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA) index, which is an internationally recognised score based on modifiable risk and protective factors for cognitive decline [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. The LIBRA index generates a dementia risk score which has been used as an outcome measure in multidomain dementia risk reduction trials [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. 2.5. Analysis All sessions were audio‐recorded and professionally transcribed in Chinese. Transcripts were then translated into English by bilingual researchers and independently verified for accuracy. Qualitative data analysis software NVivo (Version 17) was used to manage and code the data. A deductive thematic analysis approach was adopted and guided by predefined codes informed by the COM‐B, Health Belief Model and Behaviour Change Wheel frameworks and literature on dementia risk reduction in CALD communities, including user problems, concerns and acceptability [ 52 ]. Initial coding was conducted by two researchers (JS, SC) who independently developed a preliminary codebook and refined this codebook through consensus. Codes were then applied across transcripts to identify patterns in user preferences, cultural considerations and usability issues. Double coding was performed on 50% of transcripts, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Where disagreement persisted, a third researcher (JM) adjudicated. Reflective memos, audit trails and cross‐linguistic checks were maintained for transparency and trustworthiness. Coding materials, including the full codebook and a summary of themes, are available in Supporting Information . 3. Results 3.1. Participant Characteristics Thirty‐eight older adults participated in the study across four co‐design workshops and a usability testing session. Twenty‐six participants attended a workshop, of whom 23 attended all four sessions. Workshops were limited to 10 participants per session. Eighteen people participated in the usability testing (47% of the total sample), all of whom had attended at least one or more co‐design workshop. Participants were predominantly female (84%) with a mean age of 74.8 years (SD = 8.2), and most were retired or unemployed (66%). Educational attainment was generally low to middle, and participants were distributed across marital and socioeconomic statuses (Table 1 ). TABLE 1. Participant demographic characteristics ( n = 38 ). Sample characteristic n % M (SD) Age 60–69 13 34 74.8 (8.2) 70–79 13 34 80+ 12 32 Gender Female 32 84 Male 6 16 Educational attainment Low 19 50 Middle 17 45 High 2 5 Socioeconomic status 1 (lowest) 2 5 2 12 32 3 12 32 4 5 13 5 (highest) 7 18 Marital status Single/Widowed/Divorced 17 45 Married/De facto 19 50 No response 2 5 Employment status Employed/Student 1 3 Retired/Unemployed 25 66 Full time home duties 9 24 Unable to work 3 8 Open in a new tab 3.2. Workshop and Usability Testing Overview Eight main themes were identified (Figure 1 ). Discussions highlighted the increasing importance placed on personal health as individuals age and how healthy ageing underpinned a good quality of life. The workshops also identified an understanding of common health challenges associated with ageing and the role of medical professionals and preventive measures in addressing these challenges. These were broken up across multiple action categories to support brain health and ageing (physical health, brain training and diet) and are described according to the functionalities and features of the app itself. FIGURE 1. Open in a new tab Summary of themes. 3.2.1. Theme 1: Health Prioritisation in Later Life Participants described the elevated importance of health in later life, which was often framed against the backdrop of other life priorities such as finances, social relationships and independence. Common age‐related health challenges, such as high blood pressure and high blood sugar, were openly discussed. All participants voiced an awareness of the need for ongoing monitoring and management and linked this to an interest in actionable, interactive tools that can help them monitor physical and cognitive wellbeing independently: Money is no longer important, the most important thing is your own body, without your body, money can't be spent. (Participant 2, Workshop 1) 3.2.2. Theme 2: Designing for Simplicity and Clarity Participants expressed a preference for design simplicity, especially for visual and interactive components of the app (Figure 2 ). They valued clarity over creative or complex features and expected visually accessible content that is easy to navigate. While early prototypes included stylised logos and abstract visuals, participants favoured high‐contrast, bold, black fonts, standard layout conventions and easily recognisable icons. They responded positively to a ‘sunny’ cartoon‐style visual environment, which was perceived as uplifting and approachable: App name doesn't need to be too fancy. (Participant 21, Workshop 2) I think this one looks sunny. It's comfortable to look at. (Participant 21, Usability Test) FIGURE 2. Open in a new tab Developmental changes of the app interface from Workshop 2 to Usability Test on brain health score in simplified Chinese (top) and translated into English (bottom). Participants also suggested incorporating more pictures to make the content visually appealing and engaging. Colour choices were also discussed in detail, with multiple references to the positive associations and physiological comfort of the colour green: I like green, green is good. (Participant 5, Workshop 2) 3.2.3. Theme 3: Functional Needs in Brain Health Testing The brain testing module of the app promoted considerable discussion. Participants appreciated the idea of periodic cognitive screening but expressed concern about overly frequent prompts and the use of numerical scoring systems. They suggested progress indicators in the form of ratings or levels (e.g., bronze/silver/gold) would reduce anxiety and make the experience more intuitive: The score is difficult to understand, generally the level is better. (Participant 13, Workshop 2) Timing of the assessments was another point of discussion, with participants preferring flexibility to choose their own testing intervals based on their routines and age: It should be once a quarter, because you can't detect Alzheimer's in a month. (Participant 22, Workshop 2) Many noted that test results or visual displays lacked sufficient context or labels, which made interpretation difficult. They suggested accompanying visuals with textual descriptions and the use of symbols or icons, colour coding and legends to ensure that users understand the meaning and purpose of the displayed information: It says that nutrition, blood pressure, and vascular disease have room for improvement, but I still don't understand what this means. (Participant 32, Workshop 3) 3.2.4. Theme 4: Goal Setting and Motivation Participants responded positively to the concept of goal setting but emphasised the importance of breaking down goals into manageable steps. A tiered system was viewed as realistic and motivating: There should be small goals first, and then big goals. It's impossible for you to send big goals in one fell swoop, right? (Participant 5, Workshop 2) Motivational mechanisms related to progress tracking, incremental rewards, and symbolic affirmations (e.g., thumbs‐up icons) were seen as meaningful indicators of capability and progress. Continuous measurement and tracking of personal health indicators, such as weight and blood pressure, combined with real‐time data feedback over an extended period were also valuable. Participants also supported the idea of incentives for goal achievement. They noted it as a positive approach, that enhanced satisfaction and reinforced a sense of accomplishment: Yes, pick the thumbs. It shows ‘Yes, you're awesome, you're the best at everything. (Participant 5, Workshop 3) This way I feel a sense of accomplishment, my intelligence is okay, my response is okay, and it's good for myself. (Participant 5, Workshop 3) 3.2.5. Theme 5: Brain Training Preferences Participants were highly engaged with the concept of brain training activities and exercises. They expressed a preference for personalised and flexible options to stay cognitively engaged as participants wanted to avoid feeling pressured or overwhelmed. Casual, self‐paced engagement was ideal for maintaining comforting, low‐friction experiences and realistic application within their varied daily routines, particularly amongst retirees: I think these need to be interchangeable training. (Participant 33, Workshop 4) 3.2.6. Theme 6: Dietary Preferences and Digital Food Features Participants were generally receptive to the app's proposed features that offered meal suggestions and healthy recipes but described the importance of culturally tailored content. Western dietary guidelines were seen as less relevant, and participants recommended embedding localised nutritional guidance in the app. Convenience had a central role in their appraisal of dietary features with participants favouring a streamlined user interface, one that allowed for easy navigation and quick access when meal planning to reduce cognitive load: This is good, it's breakfast, lunch… For example, what do you want to eat for breakfast, click this, it will be accompanied by what content here, and it tells you how to do it. This is very good. (Participant 32, Workshop 4) While some participants expressed interest in dietary tracking, most participants found the idea of recording food intake daily as unrealistic, preferring flexible options, such as weekly logs or summaries. Others supported the idea of structured tracking if it assisted in providing clear health insights and practical changes: Every day is impossible. (Participant 17, Workshop 2) It's not realistic to remember every day. (Participant 15, Workshop 2) 3.2.7. Theme 7: Preventive Health Monitoring and Trusted Medical Information Participants described engaging in regular check‐ups, blood tests and physical examinations. The integration of medical information, such as Medicare‐linked features and personalised health alerts, were positively received, especially when it aligned with participants' real‐world healthcare practices. While early discussions about health monitoring were framed as ‘somewhat important’, later sessions like Workshop 4 and usability testing, consistently emphasised this as paramount: It's definitely your health that's the most important thing. (Participant 4, Workshop 1) 3.2.8. Theme 8: Iterative Design Feedback and Usability Testing The app design evolved significantly through a participatory process across the four workshops and usability sessions (Figures 3 and 4 ). Each workshop built upon the last discussion and/or prototype sketches. For example, Workshop 1 focussed on broad health and lifestyle concerns. Workshop 2 introduced early sketches of app components, while Workshop 3 invited critique of functional prototypes. Workshop 4 featured a semi‐interactive prototype, and usability testing allowed participants to provide detailed commentary on real‐time interactions. FIGURE 3. Open in a new tab Developmental changes of the app interface from Workshop 2 to Usability Test on dietary features in simplified Chinese (top) and translated into English (bottom). FIGURE 4. Open in a new tab Developmental changes of the app interface from Workshop 2 to Usability Test on goal setting features in simplified Chinese (top) and translated into English (bottom). Participants identified areas of confusion around the app's rating system and visual feedback. They recommended that all visual content be accompanied by textual labels, legends or explanations to clarify icons and colour codes: That looks like the lungs… maybe weather… is the top [icon] for indoor activity? (Participant 12, Workshop 3) Their suggestions led to the inclusion of icon legends, explanatory headers and tooltip pop‐ups for each brain health score to assist with user accessibility, regardless of education or digital literacy level (Figure 4 ). Additional functionalities included having handwriting, speech‐to‐text and audio features: We are not good at English or Pinyin, so I think you must have handwriting function, or speech to text. (Participant 16, Workshop 2) It would be best that it [the app] can read it out bit by bit, and we don't need to look. (Participant 12, Workshop 2) Participants evaluated interactivity of elements including progress indicator touchpoints, feedback animations and motivational pop‐ups, which were iteratively redesigned. The inclusion of visual affirmations (e.g., thumbs up) were particularly valued as a subtle but positive reinforcing element. Adjustments were made to the pacing of app content, allowing for longer display times and manual swiping in response to feedback on information disappearing too quickly: Some content has not yet [been] seen then [it] jumps over. Give it a little longer… then we can swipe it with our hands. (Participant 2, Workshop 1) 4. Discussion Our findings have implications not only for the practical development of a culturally tailored digital dementia risk reduction intervention but also how we conceptualise ageing, cognition and care among older Chinese adults. Participants' prioritisation of physical health and routine care rituals suggested a broader ethos of health‐as‐stewardship, where bodily maintenance is seen as both a practical and meaningful part of managing cognitive clarity and preserving independence and social functioning in later life [ 53 , 54 ]. This reframing of physical health as a foundation for cognitive health aligns with gerontological perspectives on holistic ageing [ 55 ] and further supports the inclusion of multidomain health content that integrates lifestyle behaviours in digital interventions for dementia risk reduction [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 56 ]. Although the LIBRA score was only used to assess its value as a prompt for behaviour change, the holistic view of health it provided, together with relevant health content, appeared to offer a motivating way to engage users with app components to encourage health behaviour change. Importantly, participants' trust in medical professionals and structured health systems suggested that integrating evidence‐based information and links to health services within the app may bolster both credibility and uptake, especially among older adults who value reassurance from health practitioners alongside empirical knowledge [ 57 , 58 , 59 ]. A recurring theme in the workshops was the preference for clarity, simplicity and sensory accessibility in the app's visual and navigational design. Preferences for larger text, high‐contrast colour schemes and longer on‐screen display times echoed broader research on age‐related sensory and cognitive changes [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ]. Participants repeatedly expressed concerns about dexterity, vision and comfort in digital environments. These insights reinforce the importance of gerontechnological design principles rooted in Universal Design and age‐friendly technology frameworks [ 60 , 62 , 64 , 65 ]. Indeed, many apps have inadequately sized operating elements and fonts, and posed challenges for individuals who had vision‐related challenges or decreased dexterity, which led to potential errors [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Our similar findings reflect deeper concerns about digital legibility and the preservation of dignity in technology use. Participants' desire for a text‐to‐speech option and low‐pressure interactivity signalled a pushback against the often cognitively demanding, performance‐oriented nature of many digital tools [ 70 ]. This finding also speaks to the importance of emotional safety in interventions designed to promote cognitive health [ 71 ] particularly in ethnic communities where dementia is heavily stigmatised and medicalised [ 10 ]. Another key theme was the importance of motivation and positive reinforcement. Participants' emphasis on interactive features, continuous health monitoring and incentive‐driven approaches were identified as ways of enhancing motivation for behaviour change. Adopting a staged approach to goal setting resonated with the broader principle of establishing early wins to encourage sustained engagement, particularly in relation to healthy lifestyle habits that support cognitive health and dementia risk reduction [ 45 , 46 , 72 , 73 ]. This is reflected in participants' favourable responses to the idea of a tiered, goal‐based system that rewards app users for small, consistent achievements. Such a scaffolding approach aligns with health and cognitive psychology [ 74 ] theories of habit formation and behaviour change, which posit that small, routinised actions can serve as foundational practices in building long‐term behavioural commitments [ 49 , 75 , 76 ]. By setting achievable milestones, older adults can not only experience recurrent moments of accomplishment but also develop a sustained commitment to the application, which may ensure longer‐term success and adherence [ 77 ]. Feedback regarding the brain training features showed both enthusiasm and caution. While participants supported the idea of cognitive exercises, their emphasis on flexibility, non‐competitiveness and customisation suggested an understanding of cognitive engagement as a space for personal growth and daily mental stimulation rather than as a test or surveillance. These insights are particularly important in a dementia risk reduction context, where anxiety about cognitive decline can itself act as a deterrent to participation in mental training activities [ 78 ]. Participants preferred non‐numerical rating systems over score‐based feedback, which reflected a desire to avoid quantification and comparison. This preference reinforces the literature on user‐friendly health technologies, which cautions against features that might trigger performance anxiety or feelings of inadequacy [ 79 , 80 ]. 4.1. Strengths and Limitations This study offers a significant contribution by foregrounding the perspectives of older adults of Chinese background in the early stages of digital intervention design for dementia risk reduction interventions. However, the study had several limitations. The study's sample, while informative, was geographically and demographically limited to a specific cohort within New South Wales. As such, the findings may not capture the full diversity of the Chinese diasporic ageing experience across Australia or in transnational contexts. Factors such as dialect, migration history, acculturation level, educational background and digital literacy likely mediated engagement with technology in complex ways that were not fully captured in this study. Our primary focus was exploratory and formative and was specifically centred on design features and user expectations rather than empirical evaluation of behavioural outcomes or intervention efficacy. Future research should adopt broader recruitment strategies to encompass the heterogeneity within the Chinese older adult population, including variation by region of origin, distinction of rural versus urban residency, and baseline levels of digital access. Longitudinal designs would help assess the sustained acceptability, adherence, and cognitive or behavioural impacts of future digital dementia risk reduction interventions over time. Evaluation of the app's effectiveness in promoting cognitive health and reducing modifiable dementia risk factors will also be a necessary next step. 5. Conclusions By integrating sociocultural, behavioural and experiential dimensions into the design process, we move beyond conventional technocentric or biomedical models of digital health to one that is firmly rooted in the lived realities and needs of culturally and linguistically diverse ageing populations. As we advance to subsequent phases of app development, it is imperative to maintain fidelity to the values articulated by participants of usability, autonomy, personalisation and cultural embeddedness. Funding This work was funded by the Australian Association of Gerontology Research Trust and Dementia Australia Research Foundation Strategic Innovation Grant. Ethics Statement Western Sydney University Human Ethics Committee has provided approval of this study (ref H14896 ). All participants provided written consent prior to participation. Conflicts of Interest Associate Professor Jed Montayre and Associate Professor Joyce Siette (at time of submission) are Associate Editors for the Australasian Journal on Ageing. There are no other conflicts of interest. Supporting information Data S1: ajag70164‐sup‐0001‐Supinfo1.docx. AJAG-45-0-s001.docx (18.8KB, docx) Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge Quang Vinh Nguyen and Jonathan Guion for their assistance with the prototyping software used in the usability testing sessions. Open access publishing facilitated by Western Sydney University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Western Sydney University agreement via the Council of Australasian University Librarians. Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. References 1. World Health Organization , “Dementia 2019,” updated September 19, 2019, https://www.who.int/news‐room/fact‐sheets/detail/dementia . 2. World Health Organization , Risk Reduction of Cognitive Decline: WHO Guidelines (World Health Organization, 2019). [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Department of Health and Social Care , G8 Dementia Summit: Global Action Against Dementia‐11 December 2013 (Department of Health and Social Care, 2013). [ Google Scholar ] 4. Livingston G., Huntley J., Sommerlad A., et al., “Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care: 2020 Report of the Lancet Commission,” Lancet 396 (2020): 413–446. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Livingston G., Sommerlad A., Orgeta V., et al., “Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care,” Lancet 390, no. 10113 (2017): 2673–2734. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Livingston G., Huntley J., Liu K. Y., et al., “Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care: 2024 Report of the Lancet Standing Commission,” Lancet 404, no. 10452 (2024): 572–628. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Low L. F., Barcenilla‐Wong A. L., and Brijnath B., “Including Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Dementia Research,” Medical Journal of Australia 211, no. 8 (2019): 345–346.e1. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Patel D., Montayre J., Karamacoska D., and Siette J., “Progressing Dementia Risk Reduction Initiatives for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Older Adults in Australia,” Australasian Journal on Ageing 41, no. 4 (2022): 579–584. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Wilson T., McDonald P., Temple J., Brijnath B., and Utomo A., “Past and Projected Growth of Australia's Older Migrant Populations,” Genus 76, no. 1 (2020): 20. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Siette J., Meka A., and Antoniades J., “Breaking the Barriers: Overcoming Dementia‐Related Stigma in Minority Communities,” Frontiers in Psychiatry 14 (2023): 1278944. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Woo B. K., “Dementia Health Promotion for Chinese Americans,” Cureus 9, no. 6 (2017): e1411. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Shu S. and Woo B. K. P., “The Roles of YouTube and WhatsApp in Dementia Education for the Older Chinese American Population: Longitudinal Analysis,” JMIR Aging 3, no. 1 (2020): e18179. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Schroeder T., Dodds L., Georgiou A., Gewald H., and Siette J., “Older Adults and New Technology: Mapping Review of the Factors Associated With Older Adults' Intention to Adopt Digital Technologies,” JMIR Aging 6 (2023): e44564. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Knaggs G. and Siette J., “The Ethical Allocation of Dementia Prevention Responsibility,” Lancet Healthy Longevity 6, no. 5 (2025): 100718. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Georgeou N., Schismenos S., Wali N., Mackay K., and Moraitakis E., “A Scoping Review of Aging Experiences Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse People in Australia: Toward Better Aging Policy and Cultural Well‐Being for Migrant and Refugee Adults,” Gerontologist 63, no. 1 (2023): 182–199. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Whitehead L., Talevski J., Fatehi F., and Beauchamp A., “Barriers to and Facilitators of Digital Health Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: Qualitative Systematic Review,” Journal of Medical Internet Research 25 (2023): e42719. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Zhang X., Raghavan V., and Yang X., “Health Perceptions and Attitudes on Mobile Health Apps in China,” Health Informatics Journal 29, no. 4 (2023): 14604582231207745. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Leung W. K. C., Yau C. Y. C., and Lam S. C., “Facilitators, Barriers, and Recommendations for Mobile Health Applications Among Chinese Older Populations: A Scoping Review,” BMC Geriatrics 25, no. 1 (2025): 396. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Cunningham T., Murray C., Du J. T., Evans N., and Ziaian T., “Digital Technology Uses, Purposes, Barriers and Training Programs for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Older Adults: A Systematic Scoping Review,” Aslib Journal of Information Management 77, no. 5 (2024): 914–937. [ Google Scholar ] 20. Keshavarz A., Masoud K., Mahin N., and Ghaem H., “The Effect of a Health Belief Model‐Based Educational Intervention on the Determinants of Intention to Influenza Prevention Behaviors Among the Older Adults,” Educational Gerontology 48, no. 8 (2022): 381–389. [ Google Scholar ] 21. Shamizadeh T., Jahangiry L., Sarbakhsh P., and Ponnet K., “Social Cognitive Theory‐Based Intervention to Promote Physical Activity Among Prediabetic Rural People: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial,” Trials 20, no. 1 (2019): 98. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Jiménez‐Zazo F., Romero‐Blanco C., Castro‐Lemus N., Dorado‐Suárez A., and Aznar S., “Transtheoretical Model for Physical Activity in Older Adults: Systematic Review,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 24 (2020): 9262. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Michie S., van Stralen M. M., and West R., “The Behaviour Change Wheel: A New Method for Characterising and Designing Behaviour Change Interventions,” Implementation Science 6 (2011): 42. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Bennett R. J., Bucks R. S., Saulsman L., Pachana N. A., Eikelboom R. H., and Meyer C. J., “Use of the Behaviour Change Wheel to Design an Intervention to Improve the Provision of Mental Wellbeing Support Within the Audiology Setting,” Implementation Science Communications 4, no. 1 (2023): 46. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Ngandu T., Lehtisalo J., Solomon A., et al., “A 2 Year Multidomain Intervention of Diet, Exercise, Cognitive Training, and Vascular Risk Monitoring Versus Control to Prevent Cognitive Decline in At‐Risk Elderly People (FINGER): A Randomised Controlled Trial,” Lancet 385, no. 9984 (2015): 2255–2263. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Moll van Charante E. P., Richard E., Eurelings L. S., et al., “Effectiveness of a 6‐Year Multidomain Vascular Care Intervention to Prevent Dementia (preDIVA): A Cluster‐Randomised Controlled Trial,” Lancet 388, no. 10046 (2016): 797–805. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Vellas B., Carrie I., Gillette‐Guyonnet S., et al., “Mapt Study: A Multidomain Approach for Preventing Alzheimer's Disease: Design and Baseline Data,” Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease 1, no. 1 (2014): 13–22. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Andrieu S., Guyonnet S., Coley N., et al., “Effect of Long‐Term Omega 3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Supplementation With or Without Multidomain Intervention on Cognitive Function in Elderly Adults With Memory Complaints (MAPT): A Randomised, Placebo‐Controlled Trial,” Lancet Neurology 16, no. 5 (2017): 377–389. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Ienca M., Wangmo T., Jotterand F., Kressig R. W., and Elger B., “Ethical Design of Intelligent Assistive Technologies for Dementia: A Descriptive Review,” Science and Engineering Ethics 24, no. 4 (2018): 1035–1055. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Ienca M., Fabrice J., Elger B., et al., “Intelligent Assistive Technology for Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 56, no. 4 (2017): 1301–1340. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Mannheim I., Schwartz E., Xi W., et al., “Inclusion of Older Adults in the Research and Design of Digital Technology,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 19 (2019): 3718. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Sanders E. B. N. and Stappers P. J., “Probes, Toolkits and Prototypes: Three Approaches to Making in Codesigning,” CoDesign 10, no. 1 (2014): 5–14. [ Google Scholar ] 33. Tong A., Sainsbury P., and Craig J., “Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): A 32‐Item Checklist for Interviews and Focus Groups,” International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19, no. 6 (2007): 349–357. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Mariño R., “Cultural Aspects of Ageing and Health Promotion,” Australian Dental Journal 60, no. S1 (2015): 131–143. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Siette J., Dodds L., Deckers K., Köhler S., and Armitage C. J., “Cross‐Sectional Survey of Attitudes and Beliefs Towards Dementia Risk Reduction Among Australian Older Adults,” BMC Public Health 23, no. 1 (2023): 1021. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Siette J., Dodds L., Seaman K., et al., “The Impact of COVID‐19 on the Quality of Life of Older Adults Receiving Community‐Based Aged Care,” Australasian Journal on Ageing 40, no. 1 (2021): 84–89. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Harvey N. and Holmes C. A., “Nominal Group Technique: An Effective Method for Obtaining Group Consensus,” International Journal of Nursing Practice 18, no. 2 (2012): 188–194. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Arevian A. C., O'Hora J., Jones F., et al., “Participatory Technology Development to Enhance Community Resilience,” Ethnicity & Disease 28, no. Suppl 2 (2018): 493–502. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Raihan N. C. M., “Stages of Change Theory StatPearls,” (2023), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556005/ . [ PubMed ] 40. Lawrence Jun Z. and Donglan Z., “Think‐Aloud Protocols,” in The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (Routledge, 2020). [ Google Scholar ] 41. Heger I. S., Deckers K., Schram M. T., et al., “Associations of the Lifestyle for Brain Health Index With Structural Brain Changes and Cognition,” Neurology 97, no. 13 (2021): e1300–e1312. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Pons A., LaMonica H. M., Mowszowski L., Köhler S., Deckers K., and Naismith S. L., “Utility of the LIBRA Index in Relation to Cognitive Functioning in a Clinical Health Seeking Sample,” Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 62, no. 1 (2018): 373–384. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Rosenau C., Köhler S., van Boxtel M., Tange H., and Deckers K., “Validation of the Updated ‘LIfestyle for BRAin Health’ (LIBRA) Index in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and Maastricht Aging Study,” Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 101, no. 4 (2024): 1237–1248. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Neuffer J., Wagner M., Moreno E., et al., “Association of LIfestyle for BRAin Health Risk Score (LIBRA) and Genetic Susceptibility With Incident Dementia and Cognitive Decline,” Alzheimer's & Dementia 20, no. 6 (2024): 4250–4259. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 45. Siette J., Dodds L., Deckers K., et al., “A Pilot Study of BRAIN BOOTCAMP, a Low‐Intensity Intervention on Diet, Exercise, Cognitive Activity, and Social Interaction to Improve Older Adults' Dementia Risk Scores,” Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease 11, no. 5 (2024): 1500–1512. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Siette J., Dodds L., Brooks C., Deckers K., Köhler S., and Armitage C. J., “Acceptability and Fidelity of the Multidomain ‘Brain Bootcamp’ Dementia Risk Reduction Program: A Mixed‐Methods Approach,” BMC Public Health 25, no. 1 (2025): 619. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Siette J., Dodds L., Dawes P., et al., “Protocol for a Pre‐Post, Mixed‐Methods Feasibility Study of the Brain Bootcamp Behaviour Change Intervention to Promote Healthy Brain Ageing in Older Adults,” PLoS One 17, no. 11 (2022): e0272517. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. Van Asbroeck S., Köhler S., van Boxtel M. P. J., et al., “Lifestyle and Incident Dementia: A COSMIC Individual Participant Data Meta‐Analysis,” Alzheimer's & Dementia 20, no. 6 (2024): 3972–3986. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 49. Dekker‐van Weering M., Jansen‐Kosterink S., Frazer S., and Vollenbroek‐Hutten M., “User Experience, Actual Use, and Effectiveness of an Information Communication Technology‐Supported Home Exercise Program for Pre‐Frail Older Adults,” Frontiers in Medicine 4 (2017): 208. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Deckers K., Barbera M., Köhler S., et al., “Long‐Term Dementia Risk Prediction by the LIBRA Score: A 30‐Year Follow‐Up of the CAIDE Study,” International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 35, no. 2 (2020): 195–203. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 51. Schiepers O. J. G., Köhler S., Deckers K., et al., “Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA): A New Model for Dementia Prevention,” International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 33, no. 1 (2018): 167–175. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 52. Braun V. and Clarke V., “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, no. 2 (2006): 77–101. [ Google Scholar ] 53. Tulchinsky T. H., “Ethical Issues in Public Health,” in Case Studies in Public Health (Elsevier, 2018), 277–316. [ Google Scholar ] 54. Davidson J. L. and Jensen C., “What Health Topics Older Adults Want to Track: A Participatory Design Study,” in Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Association for Computing Machinery; 2013), Article 26. 55. Acosta L. M. Y. and Ely E. W., “Holistic Care in Healthy Aging: Caring for the Wholly and Holy Human,” Aging Cell 23, no. 1 (2024): e14021. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 56. Deckers K., Köhler S., Ngandu T., et al., “Quantifying Dementia Prevention Potential in the FINGER Randomized Controlled Trial Using the LIBRA Prevention Index,” Alzheimer's & Dementia 17, no. 7 (2021): 1205–1212. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 57. Powell J., Inglis N., Ronnie J., and Large S., “The Characteristics and Motivations of Online Health Information Seekers: Cross‐Sectional Survey and Qualitative Interview Study,” Journal of Medical Internet Research 13, no. 1 (2011): e20. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 58. Siette J., Chong V., Samtani S., Harris C. B., Steiner‐Lim G. Z., and MacMillan F., “A Meta‐Analysis of Behaviour Change Techniques in Social Interventions Targeting Improved Cognitive Function in Older Adults,” BMC Public Health 25, no. 1 (2025): 1158. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 59. Dodds L., Deckers K., Harris C. B., and Siette J., “Behaviour Change Techniques Used in Interventions Targeting Dementia Risk Factors Amongst Older Adults in Rural and Remote Areas: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease 12, no. 4 (2025): 100093. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 60. Cajita M. I., Hodgson N. A., Lam K. W., Yoo S., and Han H. R., “Facilitators of and Barriers to mHealth Adoption in Older Adults With Heart Failure,” Computers, Informatics, Nursing 36, no. 8 (2018): 376–382. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 61. Li C., Neugroschl J., Zhu C. W., et al., “Design Considerations for Mobile Health Applications Targeting Older Adults,” Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 79, no. 1 (2021): 1–8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 62. Greenhalgh T., Wherton J., Shaw S., and Morrison C., “Video Consultations for Covid‐19,” BMJ (Clinical Research Edition) 368 (2020): m998. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 63. Fischer S. H., David D., Crotty B. H., Dierks M., and Safran C., “Acceptance and Use of Health Information Technology by Community‐Dwelling Elders,” International Journal of Medical Informatics 83, no. 9 (2014): 624–635. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 64. Zajicek M., “Successful and Available: Interface Design Exemplars for Older Users,” Interacting With Computers 16, no. 3 (2004): 411–430. [ Google Scholar ] 65. Johnson J. and Finn K., Designing User Interfaces for an Aging Population: Towards Universal Design (Morgan Kaufmann, 2017). [ Google Scholar ] 66. Kurniawan S., “Mobile Phone Design for Older Persons,” Interactions 14, no. 4 (2007): 24–25. [ Google Scholar ] 67. Liu P., Li X., and Zhang X. M., “Healthcare Professionals' and Patients' Assessments of Listed Mobile Health Apps in China: A Qualitative Study,” Frontiers in Public Health 11 (2023): 1220160. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 68. Liu N., Yin J., Tan S. S.‐L., Ngiam K. Y., and Teo H. H., “Mobile Health Applications for Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Interface and Persuasive Feature Design,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 28, no. 11 (2021): 2483–2501. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 69. Wildenbos G. A., Jaspers M. W. M., Schijven M. P., and Dusseljee‐ Peute L. W., “Mobile Health for Older Adult Patients: Using an Aging Barriers Framework to Classify Usability Problems,” International Journal of Medical Informatics 124 (2019): 68–77. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 70. Vedechkina M. and Borgonovi F., “A Review of Evidence on the Role of Digital Technology in Shaping Attention and Cognitive Control in Children,” Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021): 611155. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 71. Grobosch S., Florian W., Stefan J., and Kuske S., “Emotional Safety of People Living With Dementia: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Mental Health 32, no. 1 (2023): 110–131. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 72. Silveira P., van de Langenberg R., van het Reve E., Daniel F., Casati F., and de Bruin E. D., “Tablet‐Based Strength‐Balance Training to Motivate and Improve Adherence to Exercise in Independently Living Older People: A Phase II Preclinical Exploratory Trial,” Journal of Medical Internet Research 15, no. 8 (2013): e159. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 73. Hill N. L., Mogle J., Colancecco E., Dick R., Hannan J., and Lin F. V., “Feasibility Study of an Attention Training Application for Older Adults,” International Journal of Older People Nursing 10, no. 3 (2015): 241–249. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 74. Rogers W. A. and Fisk A. D., “Toward a Psychological Science of Advanced Technology Design for Older Adults,” Journals of Gerontology: Series B 65B, no. 6 (2010): 645–653. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 75. Delbaere K., Valenzuela T., Lord S. R., et al., “E‐Health StandingTall Balance Exercise for Fall Prevention in Older People: Results of a Two Year Randomised Controlled Trial,” BMJ 373 (2021): n740. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 76. Daly R. M., Gianoudis J., Hall T., Mundell N. L., and Maddison R., “Feasibility, Usability, and Enjoyment of a Home‐Based Exercise Program Delivered via an Exercise App for Musculoskeletal Health in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults: Short‐Term Prospective Pilot Study,” JMIR mHealth and uHealth 9, no. 1 (2021): e21094. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 77. Berliner Senderey A., Mushkat T., Hadass O., et al., “Real‐World Impact of Physical Activity Reward‐Driven Digital App Use on Cardiometabolic and Cardiovascular Disease Incidence,” Communications Medicine 5, no. 1 (2025): 94. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 78. Robinson O. J., Vytal K., Cornwell B. R., and Grillon C., “The Impact of Anxiety Upon Cognition: Perspectives From Human Threat of Shock Studies,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 (2013): 203. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 79. Andrews J. A., Brown L. J. E., Hawley M. S., and Astell A. J., “Older Adults' Perspectives on Using Digital Technology to Maintain Good Mental Health: Interactive Group Study,” Journal of Medical Internet Research 21, no. 2 (2019): e11694. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 80. Andrews G. R., “Promoting Health and Function in an Ageing Population,” BMJ 322, no. 7288 (2001): 728–729. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Data S1: ajag70164‐sup‐0001‐Supinfo1.docx. AJAG-45-0-s001.docx (18.8KB, docx) Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Articles from Australasian Journal on Ageing are provided here courtesy of Wiley ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.4 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top