MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brittany Drazich, Ji Won Lee, Kathryn H. Bowles, Janiece Taylor, Shivani Shah, Barbara Resnick, Nayeon Kim, Sarah L. Szanton

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPandemicMedicineObservational studyGerontologyPhonePsychological interventionPopulationTelehealthSocial distanceSample (material)TelemedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careNursingEnvironmental healthDisease

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207