Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41416175›Full record

ArticleMobile media & communication2026

Connections, negotiations, and tensions: Talking tech with older adults.

Nicole K Dalmer, Stephen Katz, Barbara L Marshall, Kirsten L Ellison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mobile media & communication, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Nicole K DalmerDepartment of Health, Aging and Society, Gilbrea Centre for Studies in Aging, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0326-4293
Stephen KatzDepartment of Sociology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
Barbara L MarshallDepartment of Sociology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
Kirsten L EllisonHumber River Health Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3971-1195

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mobile media, and the larger digital technological systems of which they are a part, both shape and are shaped by contemporary experiences of aging. With the aim of exploring older adults' understandings, uses of, and experiences with digital technologies in their everyday lives, we conducted four exploratory focus groups in two Canadian cities, with a total of 29 participants representing a diverse range of ages, living situations, and socio-economic statuses. Challenging stereotypes of technophobic or health-obsessed elders, our participants reported using a wide variety of devices and apps for a multiplicity of purposes. Focus groups were characterized by open-ended discussion, eliciting complexity, creativity, and agency in our participants' understandings and experiences of their digital worlds. Two main themes emerged from the analysis. First, a number of tensions - self-talk vs practice, design vs adaptation, "scripts" vs recreation - were articulated. Second, participants recounted the complex negotiations between technologies and people, bodies, environments, and resources that conjoined to shape their navigations of digital worlds. We suggest that open-ended dialogue with older adults is a promising method for understanding their ongoing, complex, and socially and materially situated engagements with technology. As a generative methodological tool, the focus group not only captures these dynamics but also produces the frictions, negotiations, and shared reflections that reveal them.

Indexed as

Agingcritical gerontologydigital technologyexploratoryfocus groupmaterialitysocio-gerontechnology

Identifiers

PMID41416175
PMCPMC12710997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.