ReviewDigital health
Scoping review of the e-health literature in older adults.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-reported negative interpersonal experiences in Polish primary care and their association with healthcare avoidance: a large-scale cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Article
- Empowering Older Adults Through Values-Informed Solutions for Technology Adoption: Protocol for a Feasibility and Acceptability Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- Latent profile analysis of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults and its influencing factors.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective and purpose: The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the breadth and scope of the existing literature on eHealth in older adults, with a particular focus on access, uptake, usability, and outcomes related to eHealth technologies. The review aims to map the existing evidence, identify research gaps, and from these, analyze the factors that influence eHealth literacy in older people and inform future research and interventions aimed at increasing eHealth engagement in the older population. Methodology: A scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Relevant peer-reviewed articles published over 10 years between 2015 and 2024 were screened from multiple electronic databases. Studies were selected based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, with a focus on older adults and their interactions with eHealth technologies. Results: A scoping review of literature from PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EBSCO identified 2247 studies, with 25 full-text articles published in the past 10 years. Findings reveal that e-health literacy decreases with age and lower education levels. External factors such as social support, technology access, and healthcare policies fluctuate with economic conditions, while internal factors like cognition, attitudes, and motivation are influenced by age and life experiences. Conclusion: eHealth literacy holds promise for enhancing healthcare access and outcomes among older adults. However, significant barriers remain, particularly regarding usability, accessibility, and digital literacy. Future research should focus on targeted education and longitudinal evaluation to better understand and support older adults' engagement with eHealth technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.