فناوری‌های پوشیدنی و فعالیت بدنی سالمندان در ایران: یک مرور روایتی از فرصت‌ها و چالش‌ها

نوع مقاله : مطالعات مروری

نویسندگان

1 استادیار دانشکده علوم ورزشی و تندرستی دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشجو دانشکده علوم ورزشی و تندرستی دانشگاه تهران

3 استاد دانشکده علوم ورزشی و تندرستی دانشگاه تهران

10.22059/jhae.2026.408058.1024

چکیده

مقدمه: با سرعت‌گرفتن سالمندی جمعیت ایران و افزایش شیوع کم‌تحرکی در میان سالمندان، فناوری‌های پوشیدنی به‌عنوان ابزارهای نوآورانه برای ترویج فعالیت بدنی و پیشگیری از بیماری‌های مرتبط با سن مطرح شده‌اند. هدف این مطالعه، بررسی فرصت‌ها، چالش‌ها و پیامدهای کاربرد دستگاه‌های پوشیدنی در مدیریت ورزشی و سالمندی سالم بود.
روش پژوهش: یک مرور روایی در بازه زمانی ژانویه ۲۰۱۵ تا نوامبر ۲۰۲۵ انجام شد. جستجوها در پایگاه‌های PubMed، Scopus، Web of Science، Google Scholar، MagIran، SID و Civilica صورت گرفت. بیش از ۲۰۰ عنوان غربالگری شد و ۱۱۰ منبع باکیفیت (۸۷ منبع انگلیسی و ۲۳ منبع فارسی) که به‌طور خاص به سالمندان (میانگین سنی ≥ ۶۰ سال) و فناوری‌های پوشیدنی مصرفی پرداخته بودند، انتخاب و به‌صورت تماتیک تحلیل شدند.
یافته ها: بیشتر مطالعات نشان داد دستگاه‌های مچی شایع‌ترین ابزارها بودند. مداخلات مبتنی بر این دستگاه‌ها به‌طور متوسط تعداد قدم‌های روزانه را ۱۲۰۰–۱۸۰۰ قدم و فعالیت بدنی متوسط تا شدید را ۳۰–۶۰ دقیقه در هفته افزایش دادند. اثربخشی عمدتاً از طریق بازخورد لحظه‌ای، هدف‌گذاری شخصی‌سازی‌شده و حمایت اجتماعی دیجیتال حاصل شد. با این حال، موانع فنی، روان‌شناختی، اقتصادی، فرهنگی و اخلاقی-قانونی به‌ویژه نگرانی‌های مربوط به حریم خصوصی داده‌ها، نرخ تداوم بلندمدت استفاده را در میان سالمندان ایرانی به زیر ۴۰ درصد رساند.
نتیجه گیری: فناوری‌های پوشیدنی پتانسیل قابل توجهی برای تبدیل ایران به جامعه‌ای با سالمندی فعال دارند، اگر  با آموزش سواد دیجیتال سالمندمحور، یارانه‌های هدفمند، بومی‌سازی کامل رابط‌های کاربری و چارچوب سیاستی ملی برای حفاظت از داده‌های سلامت همراه شوند. پیشنهاد می‌شود برنامه پایلوت «سالمندی فعال هوشمند» در استان‌های منتخب اجرا گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


Introduction

The world is experiencing an unprecedented demographic shift toward population aging. By 2050, the number of individuals aged 60 years and older is projected to exceed 2 billion, with low- and middle-income countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, facing the fastest growth rates . Physical inactivity is one of the most critical modifiable risk factors in older adults, contributing to sarcopenia, falls, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, cognitive decline, depression, and premature mortality. Despite WHO recommendations of at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week, more than 68% of Iranian older adults (age ≥ 75) and 60–80% globally fail to meet these guidelines. Consumer-grade wearable technologies including smartwatches, fitness bands, smart rings, and sensor-equipped garments have emerged as promising, scalable, and cost-effective tools to monitor, motivate, and sustain physical activity in older populations. These devices provide real-time feedback, goal setting, gamification, social connectivity, and remote monitoring capabilities. However, their real-world effectiveness, acceptability, and long-term adherence among older adults, particularly in developing countries with cultural and economic constraints, remain incompletely understood. This narrative review aimed to synthesize global and Iranian evidence on the applications, opportunities, barriers, and policy implications of wearable technologies in promoting physical activity among older adults from a sports management and gerontological perspective.

Methods

This study used a narrative review approach. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for publications from 2015 onwards in major international databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) and Persian-language databases (MagIran, SID, IranDoc, Civilica, Noormags). combinations of terms related to “wearable technology”, “fitness tracker”, “smartwatch”, “older adults”, “elderly”, “physical activity”, and their Persian equivalents were used. Inclusion criteria comprised original research, reviews, qualitative studies, and those that (a) involved participants with a mean age ≥ 60 years or where at least 50% were aged ≥ 60, (b) utilized consumer-grade wearable devices (e.g., Fitbit, Xiaomi, Garmin, Apple Watch, Samsung, Huawei, Oura Ring), and (c) reported outcomes related to physical activity, exercise behavior, sedentary time, or associated health parameters. Over 200 records were screened, and 110 high-quality sources (87 English-language and 23 Persian-language publications) were selected for in-depth thematic synthesis following Braun and Clarke’s (2021) six-phase approach.

Results

Wrist-worn devices (fitness bands and smartwatches) dominated the literature (used in >85% of studies), followed by hip/waist clip-on pedometers, smart rings, sensorised socks/garments, and skin patches(5). Meta-analytic evidence from 42 randomized trials indicates that wearable-based interventions increase daily steps by an average of 1,238–1,800 steps and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity by 30–60 minutes per week. Emerging evidence from Iranian studies and similar low- to middle-income contexts supports the potential of wearable technologies to enhance physical activity monitoring and motivation in older adults, particularly through affordable consumer devices; for instance, interventions incorporating activity trackers have demonstrated improvements in cardiovascular endurance, quality of life, and balance among sedentary older adults, alongside growing interest in sensor-based strategies for fall prevention and postural compensation. Key mechanisms of effectiveness include immediate biofeedback, personalized goal setting, gamification elements (badges, streaks), vibration reminders after prolonged inactivity, and social features allowing data sharing with family or coaches. Secondary benefits encompass improved sleep quality, reduced systolic blood pressure (4–10 mmHg), enhanced self-efficacy, and lower depressive symptoms. Nevertheless, substantial barriers persist across multiple domains. Technical issues involve reduced accuracy in darker skin tones, tremor-affected wrists, and loose-fitting devices. Psychological and cognitive barriers include low digital literacy, fear of technology, perceived complexity, and anxiety from constant notifications. Socio-economic obstacles in Iran are particularly salient: high device cost, incomplete Persian-language interfaces, limited rural internet access, and cultural beliefs that “gadgets are for the young.” Ethical-legal concerns center on privacy, third-party data sharing, and the absence of national regulations protecting older adults’ health data. Consequently, 6-month adherence rates in Iran rarely exceed 35–40%, compared with 70–80% in Scandinavian and Singaporean programs.

 

 

Conclusion

 

For wearable technologies to realize their transformative promise in a rapidly aging Iran, they must be embedded within a culturally attuned and supportive ecosystem rather than remain isolated consumer products. This transition demands coordinated actions to enhance device affordability and full Persian-language localization, provide accessible digital literacy programs tailored to older adults, integrate activity trackers into existing community sports and neighbourhood-house initiatives, and establish robust national regulations to safeguard the health data of vulnerable older populations. Only when these contextual foundations are firmly in place can wearable technologies transcend modest increases in daily steps and become sustainable drivers of active, healthy, and dignified aging across diverse socioeconomic and geographic contexts in Iran and similar middle-income countries.

 

Footnotes

Ethical approval: This study was non-experimental in nature and did not involve any intervention with human or animal subjects; therefore, obtaining an ethics approval code was not required. Nevertheless, all stages of the research were conducted in accordance with ethical research principles, including academic integrity, respect for authors’ intellectual property rights, and avoidance of data fabrication or distortion.

Funding: This article has not received any grants.

Authors’ contribution: All authors contributed to the design, implementation, and writing of all parts of the present study.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict.

Acknowledgment: We thank all the researchers who contributed to the writing of this article.

 

  1. World Health Organization. Ageing and health. WHO; 2025 [cited 2025-12-06]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health
  2. Hosseini SJ. Iran's elderly population to reach 32% by 1430 [Internet]. Mehr News Agency; 2025 Sep 26 [cited 2025 Dec 11]. Available from: https://zaya.link/news-6592824.(In Persian)
  3. Papadopoulou SK. Sarcopenia: a contemporary health problem among older adult populations. Nutrients. 2020 May 1;12(5):1293. doi:10.3390/nu12051293
  4. Izquierdo M, Merchant RA, Morley JE, Anker SD, Aprahamian I, Arai H, Aubertin-Leheudre M, Bernabei R, Cadore EL, Cesari M, Chen LK. International exercise recommendations in older adults (ICFSR): expert consensus guidelines. J Nutr Health Aging. 2021 Jul;25(7):824-53. doi:10.1007/s12603‑021‑1665‑8
  5. Cunningham C, O'Sullivan R, Caserotti P, Tully MA. Consequences of physical inactivity in older adults: a systematic review of reviews and meta-analyses. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020 May;30(5):816-27. doi:10.1111/sms.13616
  6. Anderson E, Durstine JL. Physical activity, exercise, and chronic diseases: a brief review. Sports Med Health Sci. 2019 Dec 1;1(1):3-10. doi:10.1016/j.smhs.2019.08.006
  7. Kristoffersson A, Lindén M. A systematic review of wearable sensors for monitoring physical activity. Sensors. 2022;22(2):573. doi:10.3390/s22020573. doi:10.3390/s22020573
  8. Longhini J, Marzaro C, Bargeri S, Palese A, Dell’Isola A, Turolla A, et al. Wearable devices to improve physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour: an umbrella review. Sports Med‑Open. 2024;10:9. doi:10.1186/s40798‑024‑00678‑9
  9. Wu S, Li G, Du L, Chen S, Zhang X, He Q. The effectiveness of wearable activity trackers for increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Digital Health. 2023;9:20552076231176705. doi:10.1177/20552076231176705
  10. Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Dec 18;12(1):159. doi:10.1186/s12966‑015‑0314‑1
  11. Zhang Z, Giordani B, Margulis A, Chen W. Efficacy and acceptability of using wearable activity trackers in older adults living in retirement communities: a mixed method study. BMC Geriatr. 2022 Mar 21;22(1):231. doi:10.1186/s12877‑022‑02931‑w
  12. Moore K, O'Shea E, Kenny L, Barton J, Tedesco S, Sica M, et al. Older adults’ experiences with using wearable devices: qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. JMIR mHealth UHealth. 2021;9(6):e23832. doi:10.2196/23832
  13. Bertolazzi A, Quaglia V, Bongelli R. Barriers and facilitators to health technology adoption by older adults with chronic diseases: an integrative systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2024 Feb 16;24(1):506. doi:10.1186/s12889‑024‑18036‑5
  14. Furley P, Goldschmied N. Systematic vs. narrative reviews in sport and exercise psychology: is either approach superior to the other? Front Psychol. 2021 Jul 9;12:685082. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.685082
  15. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Mar 26;4(1):5. doi:10.1186/s41073‑019‑0064‑8
  16. Vargemidis D, Gerling K, Spiel K, Vanden Abeele V, Geurts L. Wearable physical activity tracking systems for older adults — a systematic review. ACM Trans Comput Health. 2020;1(4):25:1‑25:37. doi:10.1145/3402523
  17. Hämäläinen O, Tirkkonen A, Savikangas T, Alén M, Sipilä S, Hautala A. Low physical activity is a risk factor for sarcopenia: a cross-sectional analysis of two exercise trials on community-dwelling older adults. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24:212. doi:10.1186/s12877-024-04764-1. doi:10.1186/s12877‑024‑04764‑1
  18. Asgari Mehrabadi M, Azimi I, Sarhaddi F, Axelin A, Niela-Vilén H, Myllyntausta S, Stenholm S, Dutt N, Liljeberg P, Rahmani AM. Sleep tracking of a commercially available smart ring and smartwatch against medical-grade actigraphy in everyday settings: instrument validation study. JMIR Mhealth UHealth. 2020;8(10):e20465. (In Persian). doi:10.2196/20465
  19. Chatzaki C, Skaramagkas V, Tachos N, Christodoulakis G, Maniadi E, Kefalopoulou Z, Fotiadis DI, Tsiknakis M. The Smart-Insole Dataset: gait analysis using wearable sensors with a focus on elderly and Parkinson's patients. Sensors (Basel). 2021 Apr 16;21(8):2821. doi:10.3390/s21082821
  20. Paolillo EW, Lee SY, VandeBunte A, Djukic N, Fonseca C, Kramer JH, Casaletto KB. Wearable use in an observational study among older adults: adherence, feasibility, and effects of clinicodemographic factors. Frontiers in Digital Health. 2022;4:884208. doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.884208
  21. Mercer K, Giangregorio L, Schneider E, Chilana P, Li M, Grindrod K. Acceptance of Commercially Available Wearable Activity Trackers Among Adults Aged Over 50 and With Chronic Illness: A Mixed Methods Evaluation. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4(1):e7.. PMID:26818775; PMCID:PMC4749845. doi:10.2196/mhealth.4225
  22. Li M, McPhillips MV, Szanton SL, Wenzel J, Li J. Electronic wearable device use for physical activity in older adults: a qualitative study. Work Aging Retire. 2022;10(1):25–37.doi: 1093/workar/waac023
  23. Hosseini FS, Hossein Zadeh R. Effect of physical activity on physical and mental health in elderly men. J Health Care. 2011 Jul 10;13(2). (In Persian)
  24. Ahmadi M, Noudehi M, Esmaeili M, Sadrollahi A. Comparing the quality of life between active and non-active elderly women with an emphasis on physical activity. Iranian J Ageing. 2017;12(3):262-75. (In Persian). doi:10.21859/sija.12.3.262
  25. Tavakoli M, Sheibani M, Ebrahim KH. The effect of tracer along with physical activity on cardiovascular endurance and body composition of sedentary elderly. Irtiqa Imini Pishgiri Masdumiyat. 2021;9(4):247-54. (In Persian)
  26. Tavakoli M, Ebrahim K, Namazizadeh M, Nikbakht H. The concurrent motivational effect of activity tracker and physical activity on cardiovascular endurance and quality of life in sedentary adults. 2020;0-0. (In Persian)
  27. Koerber D, Khan S, Shamsheri T, Kirubarajan A, Mehta S. Accuracy of heart rate measurement with wrist-worn wearable devices in various skin tones: a systematic review. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2023;10(6):2676-84. doi:10.1007/s40615‑022‑01446‑9
  28. Pan C‑C, De Santis KK, Muellmann S, Hoffmann S, Spallek J, Barnils NP, et al. Sociodemographics and digital health literacy in using wearables for health promotion and disease prevention: cross‑sectional nationwide survey in Germany. J Prev. 2025;46(3):371‑391. doi:10.1007/s10935‑024‑00821‑y.
  29. Farivar S, Abouzahra M, Ghasemaghaei M. Wearable device adoption among older adults: a mixed-methods study. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;55:102209. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102209
  30. Pérez-Rugosa V, Domínguez-Valdés E, Rodríguez-Rodríguez A, Fontana-Olot P, Bianchi V, Lladó-Jordan G, et al. Digital care for older people: digital literacy, technophobia and technophilia. Sage Open Aging. 2025;11:30495334251395873. doi:10.1177/30495334251395873
  31. Javdan M, Ghasemaghaei M, Abouzahra M. Psychological barriers of using wearable devices by seniors: a mixed-methods study. Comput Human Behav. 2023;141:107615. (In Persian). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107615
  32. Emmesjö L, Hallgren J, Gillsjö C. Older adults’ digital technology experiences: a qualitative study. BMC Digital Health. 2025;3(1):24. doi:10.1186/s44247‑025‑00163‑7
  33. Hepburn J, Williams L, McCann L. Barriers to and facilitators of digital health technology adoption among older adults with chronic diseases: updated systematic review. JMIR Aging. 2025;8:e80000. doi:10.2196/80000
  34. Hawash MM. Digital devices usage barriers among community-dwelling older adults in Abha, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. Belitung Nurs J. 2025;11(5):619. doi:10.33546/bnj.3989
  35. Doherty C, Baldwin M, Lambe R, Altini M, Caulfield B. Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers. NPJ Digit Med. 2025;8(1):363. doi:10.1038/s41746‑025‑01757‑1
  36. Capulli E, Druda Y, Palmese F, Butt AH, Domenicali M, Macchiarelli AG, et al. Ethical and legal implications of health monitoring wearable devices: a scoping review. Soc Sci Med. 2025:117685. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117685
  37. Rezaei S, Safaei AA. A systematic review of wearable technologies and their applications in health. J Health Biomed Inform. 2016;3(3):233-42. (In Persian)