You’ve Got E-Mail: A Pilot Study Examining the Feasibility and Impact of a Group-Based Technology-Training Intervention Among Older Adults Living in Residential Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Older adults living in residential care often experience challenges in sustaining meaningful social relationships, which can result in compromised health and well-being. Online social networking has the potential to mitigate this problem, but few studies have investigated its implementation and its effectiveness in maintaining or enhancing well-being. This pilot study used a cluster-randomized pre–post design to examine the feasibility of implementing a 12-week group-based technology-training intervention for older adults ( n = 48) living in residential care by exploring how cognitive health, mental health, and confidence in technology were impacted. Analysis of variance revealed significant increases in life satisfaction, positive attitudes toward computer use, and self-perceived competence among participants who received the intervention, but increased depressive symptoms for the control group. These findings suggest that, despite challenges in implementing the intervention in residential care, group-based technology training may enhance confidence among older adults while maintaining or enhancing mental health.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".