Information and Communications Technology as a Health Promotion Method for Older Adults in Assisted-Living Facilities: Three-Arm Group-Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The application of technology is an important and growing aspect in the field of long-term care. Growing evidence shows the positive impact of technology aids in helping the lives of the elderly. However, it is not known which aspects of information and communications technology (ICT) are preferred by older adults living in long-term care facilities. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to compare the impact of ICT-communication, ICT-entertainment, and conventional care on older adults' health and psychological change after interventions among older adults in assisted-living facilities. METHODS: A three-arm group-randomized trial design was used to evaluate participants who resided in three different but comparable assisted-living facilities and received different aspects of the ICT interventions. A total of 54 older adults with disabilities received one of the three interventions over 12 weeks and completed pre- and postevaluations on quality of life, social support, and psychological well-being. RESULTS: Participants completing this study had a mean age of 73 (SD 11.4) years, and 50% (27/54) were male. Both the ICT-communication and ICT-entertainment groups showed significant improvement in the mental component of quality of life (4.11, P=.012 and 37.32, P<.001, respectively), family/friend-related social support (0.05, P=.001 and 0.04, P<.001, respectively), happiness (0.79, P=.038 and 3.72, P=.001, respectively), and depressive symptoms (-2.74, P=.001 and -7.33, P<.001, respectively). Importantly, participants in the ICT-entertainment group improved significantly more than the other two groups. The ICT-entertainment group also showed improvement in the physical component of quality of life (20.49, P<.001) and health care worker-related social support (0.1, P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the entertainment but not the communication part of ICT is the most effective health promotion method for improving the health and psychological well-being of older adults in assisted-living facilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".