Adapting Transportation Planning e-Tools to Older Adults’ Needs: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND: Aging is often accompanied by a decrease in physical and sensory capacities and financial resources, which makes travel and the use of public transport a big challenge for older adults. These mobility limitations may prevent them from going out for groceries, medical appointments, or entertainment, which increases the risk of social isolation. A key element in helping older adults to maintain healthy aging and social engagement is to foster autonomy, freedom, and active mobility. A transportation planning e-tool can provide older adults with information about transport and trip options. There are many transportation planning e-tools, but little is known about whether and how their characteristics and functionalities address older adults’ needs and preferences. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to map existing transportation e-tools and identify gaps to be filled in order to match their functionalities with older adults’ needs and preferences. METHODS: A scoping review of existing transportation planning e-tools was conducted based on the approach developed by Arksey and O’Malley. A search in the scientific literature (Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and ERIC) as well as gray literature (TRID Database, Google Scholar, Proquest, Google Play, etc) was conducted in June 2020 and updated 3 times; in September 2021, December 2021, and May 2022. After the studies were selected, a comparative analysis was performed by 2 evaluators; an occupational therapy student and a computer science student. These e-tools were analyzed with respect to some characteristics (eg, tool’s development status, target customers, and geographic coverage) as well as 10 functionalities (time autonomy, walkability, crowd avoidance, incline avoidance, weather consideration, dark avoidance, winter obstacles avoidance, amenities inclusion, taxi driver’s information, and support affordance) that we defined based on older adults’ needs and preferences (mainly Canadians). These needs were identified from a literature review and confirmed by workshops (focus groups). RESULTS: The scientific and gray literature search yielded 463 sources, and 42 transportation e-tools were included. None of the e-tools reviewed addresses all 10 functionalities. More specifically, functionalities such as dark avoidance and support affordance were not addressed by any of the included e-tools. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the e-tools currently available to plan trips do not address older adults’ needs and preferences. The results of this scoping review helped fill this gap by identifying functionalities to include in transportation planning e-tools designed to promote active aging. The findings of this study highlight the need to use a multicriteria optimization algorithm to address older adults’ mobility needs and preferences. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/33894