Mixed-methods study reveals marginal usability but positive attitudes toward light electric vehicles in rural older adults, highlighting needs for age-appropriate designs.
Independent mobility is crucial for social participation and quality of life in later life, especially in rural areas where public transport is limited. Light electric vehicles (LEVs) may offer a promisingalternativefor everyday mobility; however, it remains unclear which features and contextual conditions are necessary for their usability and acceptance among older adults in their rural settings. As an initial exploratory step within the LeiFlex project, this mixed-methods design study aimed to assess feasibility and generate preliminary insights for further development. A user-centred study was conducted with 20 participants (≥ 60 years) in rural Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Participants completed supervised test drives with a commercially available LEV, followed by standardized usability and acceptance questionnaires (System Usability Scale, Technology Usage Inventory) and semi-structured focusgroup discussions. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis and complemented by descriptive quantitative results. Overall, attitudes towards LEVs were positive, although usability was rated as marginal (SUS mean = 53.0). Key requirements included intuitive braking logic, clear visual and acoustic feedback in safety-critical situations, ergonomic adjustability, and perceived safety. Gender differences were observed. Women reported lower usability and were more sceptical, despite having a similar intention to use. The findings suggest that acceptance of LEVs among older adults is shaped not only by modifiable usability and design characteristics, but also the conditions in which these vehicles are used. These preliminary results highlight the need for flexible, modular, and age-appropriate LEV concepts and provide a basis for further investigation in larger and more comprehensive studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Claus et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: