Three Perspectives on Older Adults’ Daily Performance, Health, and Technology Use During COVID-19: Focus Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: During COVID-19 lockdowns, older adults' engagement in daily activities was severely affected, causing negative physical and mental health implications. Technology flourished as a means of performing daily activities in this complex situation; however, older adults often struggled to effectively use these opportunities. Despite the important role of older adults' social environments-including their families and health professionals-in influencing their technology use, research into their unique perspectives is lacking. Objective: This study aimed to explore the daily activity performance, health, and technology use experiences of healthy independent Israeli adults (aged ≥65 years) during COVID-19 from a 3-dimensional perspective: older adults, older adults' family members, and health professionals. Methods: Nine online focus groups, averaging 6-7 participants per group, were conducted with older adults, family members, and health professionals (N=59). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and constant comparative methods. Results: The intertwining of daily activity performance and health emerged as a central theme, with differences between the groups. Older adults prioritized their self-fulfilling routines based on motivation and choice, especially in social-familial activities. In contrast, family members and health professionals focused on serious physical and mental health COVID-19-related consequences. A consensus among all three groups revealed the meaningful role of technology use during this period in bridging functional limitations. Participants delved into technology's transformative power, focusing on the need for technology to get engaged in daily activities. Conclusions: This study illustrates the profound interplay between daily activity performances, physical and mental health, and technology use, using a 3-dimensional approach. Its focus on technology's uses and benefits sheds light on what older adults need to increase their technology use. Interventions for improving digital activity performance can be tailored to meet older adults' needs and preferences by focusing on motivational and preference-related activities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".