Table 3.

Joint display of mixed methods findings

	Salient Quantitative findings	Salient Qualitative findings	Convergence/Divergence of Qualitative and Quantitative Datasets	Conclusions
Acceptability	58% felt technology-enabled mobility devices would enhance daily activities and be useful in daily life. 83% liked the idea of technology-enabled mobility device.	Theme 1. Older adults were enthusiastic about technology-enabled canes or mobility devices that included safety and usability features. Theme 2. While older adults were generally open to cane usage in the future if needed, they felt that using a cane could negatively impact self-image and confidence in some older adults.	Convergence with mild divergence related to concerns about self-image when using mobility device.	Participants found the concept of technology-enabled mobility devices acceptable although some issues related to usefulness, confidence in using technology-devices and self-image may have an impact on full acceptability.
Feasibility	100% reported having no concerns in items related to their own ability to use the technology-enabled mobility devices. 92% felt such technology was accessible and were not apprehensive about using technology-enhanced mobility devices.	Theme 3. While most participants were comfortable using technology in general, participants noted fear, lack of knowledge, and the perceived inability to keep up with changing technology as barriers to technology adoption among some older adults Theme 4. Primary barriers to Smart Cane utilization include financial and usability concerns.	Divergence Participants felt that for themselves they had no concerns, but worried that others may have tech/knowledge/fear/financial concerns	Participants felt the use of technology-enhanced devices was feasible for themselves, although additional studies in less tech-savvy group are warranted in order to further evaluate and possibly address potential barriers.