The Digital Engagement of Older People: Systematic Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing negative narrative about aging that portrays older people as a socioeconomic burden on society. However, increased longevity and good health will allow older adults to contribute meaningfully to society and maximize their well-being. As such, a paradigm shift toward healthy and successful aging can be potentially facilitated by the growing digital technology use for mainstream (day-to-day activities) and assisted living (health and social care). Despite the rising digital engagement trend, digital inequality between the age groups persists. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this scoping review are to identify the extent and breadth of existing literature of older people's perspectives on digital engagement and summarize the barriers and facilitators for technological nonuse, initial adoption, and sustained digital technology engagement. METHODS: This review will be based on the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews. The 6-stage framework includes: identifying research questions, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data, summarizing and reporting the results, and a consultation exercise. Published literature will be searched on primary electronic databases such as the Association of Computing Machinery, Web of Science, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ScienceDirect. Common grey literature sources will complement the database search on the topic. A two-stage (title/abstract and full article) screening will be conducted to obtain eligible studies for final inclusion. A standardized data extraction tool will be used to extract variables such as the profile of the study population, technologies under investigation, stage of digital engagement, and the barriers and facilitators. Identified and eligible studies will be analyzed using a quantitative (ie, frequency analysis) and qualitative (ie, content analysis) approach suitable for comparing and evaluating literature to provide an evaluation of the current state of the older person's digital engagement. Inclusion will be based on the Joanna Briggs Institute-recommended participant, concept, and context framework. Articles on older people (65 years and older), on digital technology engagement, and from a global context will be included in our review. RESULTS: The results of this review are expected in July 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review will identify the extent and nature of empirical evidence on how older people digitally engage and the associated barriers and facilitators. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/25616.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".