Effectiveness of Interventions for Addressing Digital Exclusion in Older Adults in the Social Care Domain: Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults make up the largest proportion of nonusers of the internet. With the increasing digitalization of services, it is important to identify what interventions are effective at reducing digital exclusion in older adults. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify what evidence exists on the effectiveness of interventions to address digital exclusion in older adults. METHODS: This rapid review assessed the effectiveness of interventions to address digital exclusion in older adults aged 60 years or older. Searches were conducted in November 2023 across a range of databases and used supplementary search methods. Searches were limited to comparative studies published from 2018 onward in English. Data were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies were included that aimed to increase a range of digital literacy skills. Sample sizes ranged from 5 to 381. Intervention approaches varied considerably and were often multicomponent and undertaken in a variety of settings. There is evidence to suggest that a range of interventions can reduce physical, personal, and perceptual barriers and improve older adults' skills, knowledge, digital literacy, and perceived self-efficacy, reduce technophobia, and increase use of technology. Importantly, findings indicated improvements among a range of subpopulations, including those living in rural areas, at risk of social isolation, who are homebound, of lower socioeconomic groups, and individuals with visual impairment. To achieve improved and sustained digital inclusion in older adults, evidence suggests it may be important to ensure structural barriers, such as access to the internet and affordability of devices, are removed. However, all studies contained methodological limitations and may not be adequately powered to determine effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence shows the potential benefits of interventions aimed at improving a range of digital skills and increasing technology use in older adults, which could help to address digital exclusion. The findings of this rapid review can inform the development and delivery of future interventions. However, it is important to consider the context in which the included interventions were used and the lack of certainty of the findings. This review also identified a lack of high-quality evidence, as all studies identified contained methodological limitations and may not have been adequately powered to determine effectiveness. In addition, consideration should also be given to those who do not wish to engage with the online world to ensure they are not left behind.
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 | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".