Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36477006›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Digital Engagement of Older Adults: Scoping Review.

Abraham Sahilemichael Kebede, Lise-Lotte Ozolins, Hanna Holst, Kathleen Galvin

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

124 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Abraham Sahilemichael KebedeSchool of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2551-502X
Lise-Lotte OzolinsDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1840-9384
Hanna HolstDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0400-9208
Kathleen GalvinSchool of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0946-3648

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital technologies facilitate everyday life, social connectedness, aging at home, well-being, and dignified care. However, older adults are disproportionately excluded from these benefits. Equal digital opportunities, access, and meaningful engagement require an understanding of older adults' experience across different stages of the technological engagement life cycle from nonuse and initial adoption to sustained use, factors influencing their decisions, and how the experience changes over time.

objectiveOur objectives were to identify the extent and breadth of existing literature on older adults' perspective on digital engagement and summarize the barriers to and facilitators for technological nonuse, initial adoption, and sustained digital technology engagement.

methodsWe used the Arksey and O'Malley framework for the scoping review process. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ACM digital library for primary studies published between 2005 and 2021. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (participants, content, and context) framework. Studies that investigated the digital engagement experience as well as barriers to and facilitators of older adults' digital technology engagement were included. The characteristics of the study, types of digital technology, and digital engagement levels were analyzed descriptively. Content analysis was used to generate tentative elements using a congruent theme, and barriers and facilitators were mapped over the capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior change model (COM-B) and the theoretical domain framework. The findings were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews).

resultsIn total, 96 publications were eligible for the final charting and synthesis. Most of the studies were published over the past 5 years, investigated the initial adoption stage of digital engagement, and focused on everyday technologies. The most cited barriers and facilitators across the engagement stages from each COM-B component were capability (eg, physical and psychological changes and lack of skill), opportunity (eg, technological features, environmental context, and resources), and motivation (eg, optimism from perceived usefulness and beliefs about capability).

conclusionsThe COM-B model and theoretical domain framework provide a guide for identifying multiple and intertwined barriers and facilitators at each stage of digital engagement. There are limited studies looking into the whole spectrum of older adults' digital technology experience; in particular, studies on technological nonuse and sustained use stages are rare. Future research and practice should focus on tailored interventions accounting for the barriers to older adults' digital engagement and addressing capabilities, motivation, and opportunities; affordable, usable, and useful digital technologies, which address the changes and capability requirements of older adults and are cocreated with a value framework; and lifelong learning and empowerment to develop older adults' knowledge and skills to cope with digital technology development. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/25616.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyEducation, ContinuingAgedHumansdigital dividedigital engagementolder adultsolder peoplesustained engagementtechnological nonusetechnology acceptance

Identifiers

PMID36477006
PMCPMC9773036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.