MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4321462338 · doi:10.2196/41692

Pandemic-Related Changes in Technology Use Among a Sample of Previously Hospitalized Older Adult New Yorkers: Observational Study

2023· article· en· W4321462338 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brittany Drazich, Ji Won Lee, Kathryn H. Bowles, Janiece Taylor, Shivani Shah, Barbara Resnick, Nayeon Kim, Sarah L. Szanton

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Aging · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueTechnology Use by Older Adults
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute on Aging
Mots-clésPandemicMedicineObservational studyGerontologyPhonePsychological interventionPopulationTelehealthSocial distanceSample (material)TelemedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careNursingEnvironmental healthDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic increased the importance of technology for all Americans, including older adults. Although a few studies have indicated that older adults might have increased their technology use during the COVID-19 pandemic, further research is needed to confirm these findings, especially among different populations, and using validated surveys. In particular, research on changes in technology use among previously hospitalized community-dwelling older adults, especially those with physical disability, is needed because older adults with multimorbidity and hospital associated deconditioning were a population greatly impacted by COVID-19 and related distancing measures. Obtaining knowledge regarding previously hospitalized older adults' technology use, before and during the pandemic, could inform the appropriateness of technology-based interventions for vulnerable older adults. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we 1) described changes in older adult technology-based communication, technology-based phone use, and technology-based gaming during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic and 2) tested whether technology use moderated the association between changes in in-person visits and well-being, controlling for covariates. METHODS: Between December 2020 and January 2021 we conducted a telephone-based objective survey with 60 previously hospitalized older New Yorkers with physical disability. We measured technology-based communication through three questions pulled from the National Health and Aging Trends Study COVID-19 Questionnaire. We measured technology-based smart phone use and technology-based video gaming through the Media Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale. We used paired t tests and interaction models to analyze survey data. RESULTS: This sample of previously hospitalized older adults with physical disability consisted of 60 participants, 63.3% of whom identified as female, 50.0% of whom identified as White, and 63.8% of whom reported an annual income of $25,000 or less. This sample had not had physical contact (such as friendly hug or kiss) for a median of 60 days and had not left their home for a median of 2 days. The majority of older adults from this study reported using the internet, owning smart phones, and nearly half learned a new technology during the pandemic. During the pandemic, this sample of older adults significantly increased their technology-based communication (mean difference=.74, P=.003), smart phone use (mean difference=2.9, P=.016), and technology-based gaming (mean difference=.52, P=.030). However, this technology use during the pandemic did not moderate the association between changes in in-person visits and well-being, controlling for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: These study findings suggest that previously hospitalized older adults with physical disability are open to using or learning technology, but that technology use might not be able to replace in-person social interactions. Future research might explore the specific components of in-person visits that are missing in virtual interactions, and if they could be replicated in the virtual environment, or through other means.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,032
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,993

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,061
Tête enseignante GPT0,342
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR AgingMême sujetTechnology Use by Older AdultsTravaux en français237 207