ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Perspectives of French community-dwelling older adults on the use of digital services: a qualitative study based on interviews.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEveryday services are increasingly being digitalised, while the proportion of older adults continues to grow. Ensuring that digital services are accessible to this population is essential to prevent digital exclusion and support autonomy. This study aimed to explore older adults' perspectives, experiences, and needs regarding digital services, identify perceived barriers to accessibility, and examine associated ethical and societal concerns.
methodsThis qualitative descriptive study recruited 48 French community-dwelling older adults in France (28 women, 20 men; mean age = 76.06 years, SD = 9.21; 42 urban, 6 rural). Semi-structured interviews were conducted using an 18-item guide developed from a review of the literature on digital accessibility. The study design and reporting were informed by the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, pseudonymised, and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Coding was performed independently by two researchers, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
resultsAll participants reported using at least one digital technology, primarily for communication, information-seeking, administrative procedures, entertainment, and, more rarely, for professional or obligatory tasks. Participants described both advantages (e.g., convenience, ergonomic interfaces) and difficulties (e.g., lack of support, interface complexity, technical failures), leading to diverse coping strategies such as seeking help, self-learning, delegation, or avoiding digital tools when possible. Feelings toward digitalisation were ambivalent, combining perceived benefits with frustration, concerns about data security, and reflections on the impact of digitalisation on autonomy and human relationships. Participants also identified barriers to accessibility (e.g., lack of digital literacy, financial constraints, poor design, insufficient support) and proposed concrete solutions, emphasising the importance of accessible design, non-digital alternatives, adapted training, and human assistance.
conclusionsDigitalisation offers opportunities for older adults but also raises accessibility, ethical, and societal challenges. While many participants recognised the usefulness of digital services, they also highlighted risks related to autonomy, perceived choice, and reduced human contact. These findings underscore the need for digital services that are inclusive, intuitive, and supported by continuous human assistance to avoid reinforcing existing inequalities.
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.