According to the World Health Organization [1], the percentage of the population made up of older adults has grown continuously over the years. The Canadian population aged 60 years or older is estimated to be 26% of the total population in 2022 and to reach 31.2% by 2030. Aging is often associated with frailty-related difficulties, including slower walking speed and poorer balance, increasing the risk of falling on icy sidewalks or not having enough time to cross at a traffic light or climb a steep hill [2]. It is challenging for many older adults to use public transport, as they may be reluctant to get on a crowded bus or have difficulty getting on and off the bus [3]. Vision loss may prevent older adults from feeling safe when driving [4,5] while having fewer financial resources often limits the use of taxis [5,6]. As their social network is often restricted, many older adults do not have anyone to help them, for example, to go shopping [5]. In addition, a lack of digital literacy increases their difficulty planning their trips and finding public transportation options [7]. These difficulties and barriers affect older adults’ ability to move around safely and independently and prevent them from maintaining social life as actively as they would like, which is often considered essential to maintaining social connectedness, independence, and a sense of well-being [8,9]. Thus, there is a need to provide accessible and affordable transportation options and support older adults in transportation planning and selecting the means of transport that best fit their needs and preferences [10].

Transportation planning e-tools have become increasingly popular around the world, providing information about different means of transport and helping people get to their destinations quickly and easily [11]. These transportation e-tools may be helpful for basic uses, such as giving directions from a departure point to a destination or identifying the shortest and fastest route or the route with the fewest connections [11]. They can also provide real-time data (eg, bus current location and arrival time), traffic congestion, and route changes. However, little is known about the extent to which existing planning e-tools are tailored to older adults’ unique values surrounding mobility issues and whether they provide safe, independent, and pleasant trips [12,13]. Therefore, there is a need to identify gaps to be filled for e-tool functionalities to be tailored to older adults’ special needs and preferences and, by fostering their mobility, contribute to healthy aging.

This scoping review was embedded in the first phase of a larger project named Mobilaînés. This project aims to implement a Mobility as a Service (MaaS) e-tool, or, in other words, a 1-stop platform transport service combining different means of transport and various forms of transport services to help older adults move around where, when, and how they want [14]. The Mobilaînés project is supported by LIPPA (Laboratoire d’innovations par et pour les aînés), a laboratory of innovations by and for older adults [14]. Mobilaînés is based on a living laboratory research approach, in which stakeholders from various sectors and fields collaborate to create, validate, and test new technologies, services, products, and systems in real-life contexts [14]. The ultimate aim of Mobilaînés is to promote active aging by helping older adults plan their trips and guiding them to use routes adapted to their needs (eg, avoid hills and snowy sidewalks) and preferences (pass by toilets or benches to take a rest). The aim of this scoping review was to (1) identify existing transportation e-tools designed to help with trips and that provide useful information about the various means of transportation available, (2) evaluate the extent to which their characteristics and functionalities are tailored to older adults’ needs and preferences emerging from the first phase of Mobilaînés [14], and (3) pinpoint research gaps that need to be filled in order to develop an e-tool that supports active, healthy aging.

The approach used follows the five stages described by Arksey and O’Malley [15]: (1) phrasing the research questions, (2) identifying relevant libraries and sources, (3) selecting interesting transportation e-tools based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, (4) charting the data, and (5) summarizing the data and synthesizing the results.

This scoping review aimed to answer the following questions:

Relevant libraries and sources were identified by an occupational therapy student and a computer science student involved in the Mobilaînés study. The search included the scientific literature (2015–2022) in 5 databases (Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and ERIC) using the following keywords: (transport* OR “public transport*” OR travel OR “public transit” OR “active transport*” OR “alternative transport” OR paratransit OR bus* OR carpool*) AND (“integrated service” OR “mobility as a service” OR “MaaS” OR “mobility information system*” OR “technology as a service” OR “TaaS” OR “intermodal mobility” OR “intermodal transportation”).

To ensure the most up-to-date review of the data, we limited our search to the scientific and gray literature (books, memoirs, and government publications) published in French or English since 2015. Our search was extended to the TRID (Transportation Research International Documentation) Database, Google Scholar, Proquest, Google, and Google Play to identify interesting mobile apps related to transport. Keywords were adapted to each source based on iterative search processes to pinpoint the most accurate and appropriate results. The keywords used for each source are shown in Table 1. Results from the databases and grey literature were exported to a reference manager (Zotero), and duplicates were eliminated.

Relevant sources were selected by 2 research assistants from different disciplines (occupational therapy and engineering). First, sources were screened by title and included if they (1) introduced a transportation tool or included a state-of-the-art section about transportation e-tools or (2) combined different available means of transport. Sources were then screened by abstract when available. The initial search yielded 463 sources: Academic Search Complete (n=215), MEDLINE with full text (n=30), CINAHL Plus with full text (n=14), SocINDEX with full text (n=3), ERIC (n=2), Transportation Research Board (n=104), Google Scholar (n=10), Google (n=18), Google App Store or Play (n=61), and scientific papers and conference proceedings recommended by team members (n=6). After removing duplicates, 421 publications remained, of which 379 did not meet the inclusion criteria according to title and abstract screening. Ultimately, 42 sources met the criteria defined above and were included in the full-text analysis.

The transportation planning e-tools selected were then charted in an Excel (Microsoft Corp) sheet by 2 research assistants (students in computer science and occupational therapy), according to the following characteristics: (1) transportation tool name, (2) tool’s development status, (3) tool’s interface, (4) target customers, (5) geographic coverage, and (6) cost for users. To achieve our objectives, we evaluated the selected e-tools according to a set of 7 values related to older adults’ mobility. This set of 7 values was determined by the research team (see protocol [14]) based on (1) an inventory of core values [16], and (2) older adults’ mobility needs and preferences, identified from the literature review and 6 individual phone interviews conducted during the first phase of Mobilaînés in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. The following are the seven values:

These 7 values were then translated into 9 statements that an adapted transportation system for older adults should ideally satisfy (Table 2). To do so, 6 phone interviews with frailer older adults were conducted in order to identify facilitators and barriers to mobility (when planning trips and moving around) and document previous experiences. These phone interviews were transcribed and coded, and later on, the outcome was classified into mobility facilitators and barriers by 2 project team members and then covalidated by 2 researchers [24]. Emerging themes were compared with data from 2 workshops on mobility facilitators and barriers (see research protocol) [8]. Recurrent themes were finally analyzed by the research team to generate the Mobilaînés statements (Table 2).

A survey was sent to the steering committee members (stakeholders from the public, scientific, and community sectors who work with or study the older adult population) [8] and LIPPA’s older adults committee to validate and classify these statements according to their importance and impact on promoting active aging. Gaps between the 2 group classifications were discussed during a steering committee meeting to decide the final classification: 9 statements were classified as important, recommended, or not important. The resultant statements and the corresponding values, as well as the steering committee members’ and older adults’ classifications of these statements, are presented in Table 2.

The survey results support the relevance of co-designing a transportation tool that would offer a safe journey and routes and interfaces adapted to the physical, sensory, and cultural needs of older adults. Interactions with older adults through co-design workshops highlighted the importance of providing an easy-to-use platform and considering key elements such as the weather, especially for trips that require you to arrive at a specific time. Exploration of new travel experiences was identified as not important by both partners and the older adults committee.

To translate these statements into more technical and measurable functionalities, 2 “in-person” workshop sessions with transportation service providers and 2 others with older citizens (n=8) were conducted. In total, 10 relevant functionalities (see Table 3) were kept after the research team’s analysis and after discussion and validation by the steering committee members. These 10 functionalities are considered to be what an ideal transportation tool should provide to address older adults’ needs and preferences.

A total of 42 transportation e-tools were included in this scoping review: 37 are accessible via mobile apps (Android or iOS) and web platforms, along with 4 prototypes and 1 web platform (Figure 1). The e-tools included did not target a specific population, except for 3 of the prototypes, namely Path2.0 [25], mPASS [26], and Mobility in Later Life [27], which were designed for people with disabilities, pedestrians, and older adults, respectively. Two e-tools (STS [28] and Embarque Estrie [29]) cover the region where the study took place (the city of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada), while 4 e-tools cover other cities in Quebec (the Montreal area for Chrono [30], STL Synchro+ [31], and TripGo [32], the province of Quebec for Exo Quebec [33]), and 2 cover cities in another Canadian province, Ontario (OC Transpo [34] in Ottawa and Triplinx in Toronto). While 27 e-tools are for use in different cities and countries in Europe, 6 e-tools (Transit [35], Moovit [36], CityMapper [37], GoogleMaps [38], HERE WeGo [39], and Transperth [40]) can be used in different cities around the world. Most of the e-tools reviewed (n=38) consider public transport: 7 consider only bus while others consider rail, tramway, and bus. All of the e-tools reviewed suggest walking paths, 29 suggest bike paths, 8 suggest bike sharing, and 10 e-tools redirect users to ride-sharing websites or apps for ride-sharing routes. The same is true for taxi routes, which are included in 4 of the e-tools reviewed. Three e-tools redirect people to Uber for rides. Twenty e-tools suggest riding (car) paths. Five e-tools suggest paths for kick scooters, but only 1 tool suggests paths for motorbikes. All the transportation e-tools reviewed are free to install and use, except for Transit [35] and Whiz [41], which charge fees for additional personalization and more functionalities.

Following is our analysis of the e-tools in relation to the 10 functionalities.

Table 4 summarizes further details.

The aim of this scoping review was to explore the scientific and gray literature in order to identify existing transportation planning e-tools and evaluate the extent to which their characteristics and functionalities are tailored to older adults’ needs and preferences. Although many transportation planning e-tools have been developed to help people reach their destination using different means of transport (car, taxi, bus, car sharing, bicycle, walking, etc) and to give them various details about the trip (eg, directions, which bus to take, and which station), most of the existing e-tools focus on the functionalities for the shortest or fastest route or the route with the fewest transfers and consider only 1 criterion (distance, time, or the number of transfers). However, based on the Mobilainés project workshops, older adults did not find these functionalities (shortest or fastest route) to be very important. Furthermore, older adults’ needs with respect to avoiding winter obstacles and inclines were not taken into consideration in most of the e-tools reviewed. In general, workshop results show that weather conditions are considered by older adults when making decisions about transportation means, the time of the day, and the reason they travel. This finding is consistent with those of Stein et al [27]. Incline avoidance was considered only for bike paths by 8 e-tools. The only exceptions are mPASS [26], which considers icy sidewalks and inclines as barriers to avoid in route planning, and Sway [42], which considers the criterion of comfort. Moreover, few e-tools provide functionalities that might help older adults who have difficulty walking. Transit [35] proposes routes without stairs, while VaNavigo [56], RATP [61], and Path2.0 [25] suggest accessible routes for people with reduced mobility using wheelchairs. In this context, TripGo [32] provides 6 alternatives (recommended, greenest, easiest, fastest, healthiest, and cheapest) (see Multimedia Appendix 1 for further details).

To foster older adults’ mobility, identified gaps (eg, help to get into or onto, and out of or off vehicles and with bags or a walker), awareness of accessible amenities (eg, toilets and restaurants) as brought up by Stein et al [27], and information about whether it will be dark during the return trip) should be considered in the Mobilainés platform to fulfill their needs and preferences. Furthermore, since older adults’ needs and preferences may differ from one person to the next, multicriteria optimization algorithms may be a promising way to personalize mobility [27]. To contribute to healthy aging, there is a great need for a transportation planning tool that provides personalized maps with textual and graphic presentation and routes adapted to older adults’ physical and sensory impairments and cognitive capacities [5].

This study has some limitations; for example, some articles may not have been retrieved (due to the chosen keywords). Including prototypes in our scoping review is also a limitation of our analysis because these e-tools are not accessible and could not be tested. Furthermore, not including transportation planning e-tools that use only one mode may be a limitation because they may have some interesting functionalities for an e-tool involving only one mode of transport.

This scoping review identified gaps that should be addressed to produce transportation planning e-tools that aim to promote active and independent aging. The results of this scoping review will be useful in designing a personalized multimodal planning tool, such as Mobilaînés, to help older adults select a route that takes their needs and preferences into account. Further research is needed to determine whether data related to the functionalities identified are available or must be created to develop a transportation planning tool in line with older adults’ values. Challenges that remain concerning include which approaches to take in terms of routing algorithms, optimization criteria, and the importance of each of the criteria considered in order to find suitable routes for older adults and make these e-tools readily accessible to users with limited digital literacy.