MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414616007 · doi:10.2196/75174

Digital Isolation and Depression Risk in Older Adults Using the National Health and Aging Trends Study Database: 8-Year Longitudinal Study

2025· article· en· W4414616007 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhili He, Shijun Yang, Wei Tong

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Longitudinal studyMental healthIsolation (microbiology)Public healthSocial isolationAssociation (psychology)Digital literacyDigital health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The rapid advancement of digital technologies has profoundly transformed communication practices. However, this technological revolution has also led to "digital isolation," a form of social disconnection caused by limited or absent engagement with digital communication tools, including smartphones, computers, email, and the internet. This issue is particularly concerning for older adults, as it may increase their likelihood of developing mental health disorders, with depression being a primary concern. Although digital isolation has been studied less frequently than traditional social isolation, it may be a significant contributor to both the initiation and progression of depression in this population. Objective: This investigation seeks to assess longitudinal relationships between multidimensional digital disengagement (encompassing 4 dimensions: mobile device use, computer interaction, electronic correspondence, and web-based engagement) and incident depression among older adults, using longitudinal data from the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). Methods: The analysis was conducted based on the NHATS dataset, a nationally representative longitudinal survey using multistage sampling to represent community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older in the United States. We analyzed data from 2011 (Round 1) to 2018 (Round 8), including 8199 participants in the discovery and validation cohorts. Digital isolation was measured using a 4-item index based on self-reported nonuse of mobile phones, computers, email, and the internet. Participants were categorized into high (aggregate score ≥3) or low (aggregate score ≤2) digital isolation groups. Weighted Cox regression models with proportional hazards assumptions were used to quantify longitudinal associations between the digital isolation index (and its individual components) and incident depression, incorporating multivariable adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, and race or ethnicity), socioeconomic indicators (education level, family income, and marital status), and clinical profiles (tobacco use history and multimorbidity burden). Time-to-event analyses were visualized through Kaplan-Meier estimators, complemented by prespecified subgroup analyses evaluating effect modification patterns through interaction term testing. Results: A high level of digital isolation, as measured by the composite index, was associated with a significantly greater risk of incident depression (fully adjusted model: hazard ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.55; P<.001). Furthermore, analysis of the individual components showed that nonuse of computers, email, and the internet was each significantly associated with a higher depression risk, whereas mobile phone isolation had a weaker, nonsignificant association. Conclusions: The study revealed a robust association between increased digital isolation and a higher likelihood of depression in the older population. These results underscore the importance of implementing tailored public health strategies to address digital isolation, especially for older adults. To minimize its detrimental effects on mental health, policymakers should encourage digital literacy programs and strengthen mental health services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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