Exploration of Digital Health Technologies

Table 4. Associations between older adults’ frailty status and the typology of non-, basic-, selective- and allround-use of the internet (n = 2,312)

Characteristics	Non-user versus selective user					Basic user versus selective user					Allrounder versus selective user
Characteristics	B	OR	Sig.	Lower	Upper	B	OR	Sig.	Lower	Upper	B	OR	Sig.	Lower	Upper
Intercept	–1.552		^***			–1.008		^***			–0.457		^*
Gender (ref.: female)
Male	–0.392	0.675	^**	0.520	0.878	–0.277	0.758	^*	0.592	0.970	0.447	1.563	^***	1.227	1.990
Age (years, ref.: 60–69)
70–79	0.926	2.525	^***	1.879	3.392	0.344	1.411	^*	1.076	1.851	–0.248	0.780	0.063	0.600	1.013
80+	2.279	9.768	^***	6.814	14.004	1.102	3.011	^***	2.107	4.304	–1.226	0.293	^***	0.170	0.506
Educational attainment (ref.: lower secondary)
No degree or primary	1.281	3.599	^***	2.453	5.279	0.823	2.277	^***	1.513	3.427	–0.311	0.733	0.291	0.412	1.305
Higher secondary	–0.571	0.565	^***	0.409	0.781	–0.114	0.892	0.471	0.655	1.216	0.144	1.155	0.388	0.833	1.603
Higher education	–1.530	0.217	^***	0.147	0.320	–0.620	0.538	^***	0.386	0.749	0.483	1.621	^**	1.193	2.204
Income (ref.: ≥ €2,000)
< €1,500	0.709	2.032	^***	1.451	2.847	0.069	1.071	0.689	0.765	1.498	–0.591	0.554	^**	0.381	0.806
€1,500–1,999	0.158	1.171	0.361	0.835	1.644	–0.049	0.952	0.761	0.695	1.305	–0.590	0.555	^***	0.397	0.775
Partner (ref.: yes)
No partner	0.283	1.326	0.083	0.964	1.825	–0.006	0.994	0.969	0.719	1.373	0.186	1.204	0.284	0.857	1.692
Physical frailty (ref.: no-low)
Mild	0.510	1.665	^**	1.207	2.298	0.247	1.280	0.135	0.926	1.769	–0.334	0.716	0.085	0.490	1.048
High	0.786	2.195	^***	1.442	3.340	0.440	1.553	^*	1.011	2.415	0.088	1.092	0.737	0.653	1.827
Psychological frailty (ref.: no-low)
Mild	0.059	1.060	0.706	0.782	1.438	0.008	1.008	0.958	0.753	1.349	0.183	1.201	0.216	0.898	1.606
High	0.174	1.191	0.486	0.729	1.945	–0.170	0.844	0.526	0.499	1.427	0.291	1.338	0.317	0.757	2.365
Social frailty (ref.: no-low)
Mild	–0.056	0.945	0.733	0.685	1.304	0.136	1.145	0.387	0.842	1.558	–0.319	0.727	^*	0.555	0.952
High	0.390	1.477	0.052	0.996	2.190	0.594	1.811	^**	1.240	2.644	–0.527	0.590	^**	0.399	0.874
Environmental frailty (ref.: no-low)
Mild	0.194	1.214	0.197	0.904	1.630	0.217	1.242	0.120	0.945	1.632	0.000	1.000	0.998	0.766	1.305
High	0.441	1.554	^*	1.065	2.268	0.139	1.150	0.484	0.778	1.699	0.035	1.035	0.868	0.688	1.558
McFadden R²	0.165

Return to article view

B = unstandardized regression coefficient, CI = confidence interval, OR = odds ratio, Sig. = significance. Levels of significance: ^*** p ≤ 0.001, ^** p ≤ 0.01, ^* p ≤ 0.05

Supplementary materials

The supplementary table for this article is available at: https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/file/101159_sup_1.pdf.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The Digital Ageing consortium is composed of researchers from Vrije Universiteit Brussel and University of Antwerp: Ignace Glorieux, Dimitri Mortelmans, An Jacobs, Anina Vercruyssen, Nico De Witte, Ilse Mariën, Werner Schirmer, Bram Spruyt, Cora Van Leeuwen, Jorrit Campens and Nelly Geerts. The authors would like to thank the other members of the Digital Ageing Consortium. Furthermore, we would like to express our deep gratitude to the founders of the Belgian Ageing Studies for using their data.

Author contributions

JC: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft. PtB: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing—review & editing. MNA: Writing—review & editing. NDW: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the ethical committee of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (B.U.N. 143201111521).

Consent to participate

Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The data analyzed in this study was obtained from the Belgian Ageing Studies (BAS). The dataset is not publicly available because access is restricted to protect the integrity of the research and comply with BAS’s data governance policies. For further discussion regarding this study, please contact the corresponding author.

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO), SBO-project [S005221N]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. United Nations; c2019 [cited 2024 Aug 29]. Available from: https://population.un.org/wpp/assets/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf

Ageing Europe - Looking at the lives of older people in the EU — 2020 edition. European Union; [cited 2024 Sep 5]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-books/-/ks-02-20-655

Population projections in the EU. European Union; [cited 2024 Sept 5]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Population_projections_in_the_EU

Scharlach A. Creating Aging-Friendly Communities in the United States. Ageing Int. 2011;37:25–38. [DOI]

Anderson KA, Fields NL, Cassidy J, Peters-Beumer L. Purpose in Life: A Reconceptualization for Very Late Life. J Happiness Stud. 2022;23:2337–48. [DOI]

Löfqvist C, Granbom M, Himmelsbach I, Iwarsson S, Oswald F, Haak M. Voices on relocation and aging in place in very old age--a complex and ambivalent matter. Gerontologist. 2013;53:919–27. [DOI] [PubMed]

Hillcoat-Nallétamby S, Ogg J. Moving beyond ‘ageing in place’: older people’s dislikes about their home and neighbourhood environments as a motive for wishing to move. Ageing Soc. 2013;34:1771–96. [DOI]

Rojo Perez F, Fernandez-Mayoralas Fernandez G, Pozo Rivera E, Manuel Rojo Abuin J. Ageing in Place: Predictors of the Residential Satisfaction of Elderly. Soc Indic Res. 2001;54:173–208. [DOI]

Severinsen C, Breheny M, Stephens C. Ageing in Unsuitable Places. Hous Stud. 2015;31:714–28. [DOI]

10.

Sixsmith J, Fang ML, Woolrych R, Canham S, Battersby L, Ren TH, et al. Ageing-in-Place for Low-Income Seniors: Living at the Intersection of Multiple Identities, Positionalities, and Oppressions. In: Hankivsky O, Jordan-Zachery JS, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Intersectionality in Public Policy. The Politics of Intersectionality. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2019. pp. 641–64. [DOI]

11.

Nakagawa T, Noguchi T, Komatsu A, Ishihara M, Saito T. Aging-in-place preferences and institutionalization among Japanese older adults: a 7-year longitudinal study. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:66. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

12.

Bosch-Farré C, Malagón-Aguilera MC, Ballester-Ferrando D, Bertran-Noguer C, Bonmatí-Tomàs A, Gelabert-Vilella S, et al. Healthy Ageing in Place: Enablers and Barriers from the Perspective of the Elderly. A Qualitative Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:6451. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

13.

Genge C, McNeil H, Debergue P, Freeman S. Technology to support aging in place: key messages for policymakers and funders. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1287486. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

14.

Duan-Porter W, Ullman K, Rosebush C, McKenzie L, Ensrud KE, Ratner E, et al. Interventions to Prevent or Delay Long-Term Nursing Home Placement for Adults with Impairments-a Systematic Review of Reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35:2118–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

15.

Wang S, Bolling K, Mao W, Reichstadt J, Jeste D, Kim H, et al. Technology to Support Aging in Place: Older Adults’ Perspectives. Healthcare (Basel). 2019;7:60. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

16.

Chen YR, Schulz PJ. The Effect of Information Communication Technology Interventions on Reducing Social Isolation in the Elderly: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:e18. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

17.

Ollevier A, Aguiar G, Palomino M, Simpelaere IS. How can technology support ageing in place in healthy older adults? A systematic review. Public Health Rev. 2020;41:26. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

18.

Sumner J, Chong LS, Bundele A, Lim YW. Co-Designing Technology for Aging in Place: A Systematic Review. Gerontologist. 2021;61:e395–e409. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

19.

Elers P, Hunter I, Whiddett D, Lockhart C, Guesgen H, Singh A. User Requirements for Technology to Assist Aging in Place: Qualitative Study of Older People and Their Informal Support Networks. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6:e10741. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

20.

Peek STM, Wouters EJM, Luijkx KG, Vrijhoef HJM. What it Takes to Successfully Implement Technology for Aging in Place: Focus Groups With Stakeholders. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:e98. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

21.

Hargittai E, Dobransky K. Old Dogs, New Clicks: Digital Inequality in Skills and Uses among Older Adults. Can J Commun. 2017;42:195–212. [DOI]

22.

Hunsaker A, Hargittai E. A review of Internet use among older adults. New Media Soc. 2018;20:3937–54. [DOI]

23.

Campens J, Vercruyssen A, Schirmer W, Verté E, De Witte N. The association between internet non-use and multidimensional frailty in older adults: a three-wave cross-sectional study from 2004 to 2021. Behav Infor Tech. 2023;43:1957–71. [DOI]

24.

Borg K, Smith L. Digital inclusion and online behaviour: five typologies of Australian internet users. Behav Infor Tech. 2018;37:367–80. [DOI]

25.

König R, Seifert A, Doh M. Internet use among older Europeans: an analysis based on SHARE data. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2018;17:621–33. [DOI]

26.

Tuikka AM, Vesala H, Teittinen A. Digital Disability Divide in Finland. In: Li H, Pálsdóttir Á, Trill R, Suomi R, Amelina Y, editors. Well-Being in the Information Society: Fighting Inequalities - WIS 2018 - Communications in Computer and Information Science; 2018 Aug 27–29; Turku, Finland. Cham: Springer; 2018. pp. 162–73. [DOI]

27.

Vulpe S, Crăciun A. Silver surfers from a European perspective: technology communication usage among European seniors. Eur J Ageing. 2019;17:125–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

28.

van Deursen AJ, Helsper EJ. The Third-Level Digital Divide: Who Benefits Most from Being Online? In: Robinson L, Cotton SR, Schulz J, Hale TM, Williams A, editors. Communication and Information Technologies Annual. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2015. pp. 29–52. [DOI]

29.

König R, Seifert A. From Online to Offline and Vice Versa: Change in Internet Use in Later Life Across Europe. Front Sociol. 2020;5:4. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

30.

Campens J, Schirmer W, Vercruyssen A, Verté E, De Witte N. Identifying subgroups of non-internet-users among community dwelling older people. J Aging Innovation. 2022;11:112–30.

31.

Selak S, Albaina O, Gabrovec B. Can we manage frailty at individual level by the use of information and communication technologies: a narrative literature review. Slov Med J. 2019;88:249–62. [DOI]

32.

Hong J, Kong H. Digital Therapeutic Exercises Using Augmented Reality Glasses for Frailty Prevention among Older Adults. Healthc Inform Res. 2023;29:343–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

33.

van Velsen L, Illario M, Jansen-Kosterink S, Crola C, Di Somma C, Colao A, et al. A Community-Based, Technology-Supported Health Service for Detecting and Preventing Frailty among Older Adults: A Participatory Design Development Process. J Aging Res. 2015;2015:216084. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

34.

De La Vega-Cordero EM, Miriam L, Isabel GA, Oscar R, Alejandra C. Effectiveness of an online multicomponent physical exercise intervention on the physical performance of community-dwelling older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Geriatr Nurs. 2023;54:83–93. [DOI] [PubMed]

35.

Kwan RY, Lee D, Lee PH, Tse M, Cheung DS, Thiamwong L, et al. Effects of an mHealth Brisk Walking Intervention on Increasing Physical Activity in Older People With Cognitive Frailty: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8:e16596. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

36.

Sui Y, Kor PPK, Li M, Wang J. Effects of a Social Media-Based Mind-Body Intervention Embedded With Acupressure and Mindfulness for Stress Reduction Among Family Caregivers of Frail Older Adults: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Form Res. 2023;7:e42861. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

37.

Díaz-Ramos J, Avelar-González A, Leal-Mora D, Ramírez-Anguiano V, Ramírez-Vargas J. Prevalence of Frailty and Its Association with Information and Communication Technologies Use among Older Adults. Res Rev J Med Sci Tech. 2018;7:40–8. [DOI]

38.

Keränen NS, Kangas M, Immonen M, Similä H, Enwald H, Korpelainen R, et al. Use of Information and Communication Technologies Among Older People With and Without Frailty: A Population-Based Survey. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e29. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

39.

Gobbens RJJ, van der Ploeg T. The Development of Multidimensional Frailty Over Seven Years A longitudinal study among Dutch community-dwelling older people using the Tilburg Frailty Indicator. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021;95:104393. [DOI] [PubMed]

40.

Nicholson C, Meyer J, Flatley M, Holman C. The experience of living at home with frailty in old age: a psychosocial qualitative study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50:1172–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

41.

De Witte N, Gobbens R, Donder LD, Dury S, Buffel T, Schols J, et al. The comprehensive frailty assessment instrument: development, validity and reliability. Geriatr Nurs. 2013;34:274–81. [DOI] [PubMed]

42.

De Witte N, Gobbens R, Donder LD, Dury S, Buffel T, Verté D, et al. Validation of the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument against the Tilburg Frailty Indicator. Eur Geriatr Med. 2013;34:248–54. [DOI]

43.

Lee DO, Chin YR. The Follow-up Study of Changes in Frailty in Elderly Receiving Home Health Care of the Public Health Center. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs. 2019;30:528–38. [DOI]

44.

Gallistl V, Wanka A. The internet multiple: How internet practices are valued in later life. Int J Ageing Later Life. 2022;15:103–26. [DOI]

45.

Gallistl V, Rohner R, Hengl L, Kolland F. Doing digital exclusion - technology practices of older internet non-users. J Aging Stud. 2021;59:100973. [DOI] [PubMed]

46.

Neves BB, Fonseca JRS, Amaro F, Pasqualotti A. Social capital and Internet use in an age-comparative perspective with a focus on later life. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0192119. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

47.

Dziuba S, Cierniak-Emerych A, Michalski G, Poulová P, Mohelská H, Klímová B. The use of the internet by older adults in Poland. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2019;20:171–8. [DOI]

48.

Schehl B, Leukel J, Sugumaran V. Understanding differentiated internet use in older adults: A study of informational, social, and instrumental online activities. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;97:222–30. [DOI]

49.

van Boekel LC, Peek ST, Luijkx KG. Diversity in Older Adults’ Use of the Internet: Identifying Subgroups Through Latent Class Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e180. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

50.

van Deursen AJ, Helsper EJ. A nuanced understanding of Internet use and non-use among the elderly. Eur J Commun. 2015;30:171–87. [DOI]

51.

Population Distribution and Basic Demographic Characteristics 2010. Department of Statistics Malaysia; c2020 [cited 2024 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.mycensus.gov.my/index.php/census-product/publication/census-2010/659-population-distribution-and-basic-demographic-characteristics-2010

52.

Campens J, Vercruyssen A, De Keyzer W, De Witte N. Using Two-Step Cluster Analysis and Latent Class Analysis to Construct a Typology of Internet Users Among Community-Dwelling Older People. J Gerontol Soc Work. 2024;67:803–24. [DOI] [PubMed]

53.

De Witte N, Hoeyberghs L, Verte E, De Donder L, Dierckx E, Verte D, et al. The comprehensive frailty assessment instrument enables to detect multidimensional frailty in community dwelling older people. Healthy Aging Res. 2018;7:1–6. [DOI]

54.

Malhotra MK, Sharma S, Nair SS. Decision making using multiple models. Eur J Oper Res. 1999;114:1–14. [DOI]

55.

Mami AM, Ali Elberjo A. On using nonparametric regression methods to estimate categorical outcomes models with mixed data types. Int J Appl Sci. 2015;1:15–22. [DOI]

56.

Giritli H, Öney-Yazıcı E, Topçu-Oraz G, Acar E. The interplay between leadership and organizational culture in the Turkish construction sector. Int J Proj Manage. 2013;31:228–38. [DOI]

57.

Weisburd D, Britt C. Statistics in criminal justice. New York: Springer; 2014. [DOI]

58.

Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. Survival Analysis: A Self‐Learning Text. New York: Springer; 2012. [DOI]

59.

Hall J, Sammons P. Mediation, moderation & interaction. In: Teo T, editor. Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research. Rotterdam: SensePublishers; 2013. pp. 267–86. [DOI]

60.

Oyeyemi G, Adewara A, Adebola F, Salau S. On the Estimation of Power and Sample Size in Test of Independence. Asian J Math Stat. 2010;3:139–46. [DOI]

61.

Berger AM, Berger CR. Data mining as a tool for research and knowledge development in nursing. Comput Inform Nurs. 2004;22:123–31. [DOI] [PubMed]

62.

Biggs D, De Ville B, Suen E. A method of choosing multiway partitions for classification and decision trees. J Appl Stat. 1991;18:49–62. [DOI]

63.

Kass GV. An Exploratory Technique for Investigating Large Quantities of Categorical Data. Appl Stat. 1980;29:119–27. [DOI]

64.

Gwyther H, van Velsen L, Shaw RL, D’Avanzo B, Bujnowska-Fedak M, Kurpas D, et al. The use of technology in the context of frailty screening and management interventions: a study of stakeholders’ perspectives. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19:110. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

65.

Lawson B, Sampalli T, Warner G, Burge F, Moorhouse P, Gibson R, et al. Improving Care for the Frail in Nova Scotia: An Implementation Evaluation of a Frailty Portal in Primary Care Practice. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8:112–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

66.

Charlton K, Sinclair DR, Hanratty B, Burrow E, Stow D. Measuring frailty and its association with key outcomes in the ambulance setting: a cross sectional observational study. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:935. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

67.

Berner J, Aartsen M, Deeg D. Predictors in starting and stopping Internet use between 2002 and 2012 by Dutch adults 65 years and older. Health Informatics J. 2019;25:715–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

68.

Friemel TN. The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media Soc. 2016;18:313–31. [DOI]

69.

Huxhold O, Hees E, Webster NJ. Towards bridging the grey digital divide: changes in internet access and its predictors from 2002 to 2014 in Germany. Eur J Ageing. 2020;17:271–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

70.

Sanchiz M, Amadieu F, Paubel P, Chevalier A. User-friendly search interface for older adults: supporting search goal refreshing in working memory to improve information search strategies. Behav Inf Tech. 2019;39:1094–109. [DOI]

71.

Wilson-Menzfeld G, Brittain K. Digital exclusion in later life: A narrative review. In: Tsatsou P, editor. Vulnerable People and Digital Inclusion: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2022. pp. 169–88. [DOI]

72.

Bünning M, Schlomann A, Memmer N, Tesch-Römer C, Wahl H. Digital Gender Gap in the Second Half of Life Is Declining: Changes in Gendered Internet Use Between 2014 and 2021 in Germany. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2023;78:1386–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

73.

Lee JY. A qualitative study of latent reasons for internet non-and limited user. Commun Res Proc. 2022;8:364–82. [DOI]

74.

Dequanter S, Gorus E, Laere SV, De Witte N, Verté D, Steenhout I, et al. Internet use and cognitive frailty in older adults: a large-scale multidimensional approach. Eur J Ageing. 2022;19:1135–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

75.

Geerts N, Schirmer W, Vercruyssen A, Glorieux I. Exploring older adults’ ICT support: A mismatch between needs and provision. New Media Soc. 2023;26:7314–30. [DOI]

76.

Petrovčič A, Reisdorf BC, Grošelj D, Prevodnik K. A Typology of Aging Internet Users: Exploring Digital Gradations in Internet Skills and Uses. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2022;41:1921–40. [DOI]