Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Digital technology usage among older adults with cognitive frailty: A survey during COVID-19 pandemic
Md Fadzil NH, Shahar S, Singh DKA, Singh DKA, Rajikan R, Vanoh D, Mohamad Ali N, Mohd Noah SA.. Digital health, 2023-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective The research aimed to study digital divide by determining the usage of digital technology among older adults with cognitive frailty (CF) in Malaysia. Methods The dataset was obtained from the AGELESS trial screening phase conducted from October 2021 to March 2022, involving 476 community-dwelling Malaysian older adults (67.7 years old ± 6.1). Digital technology usage was assessed and CF was determined using Fried's criteria and Clinical Dementia Rating. A binary logistic regression was used to determine the sociodemographic factors associated with digital technology use among older adults with CF. Results The findings suggest a digital divide between older adults with CF and robust in Malaysia. CF individuals (72.1%) were less likely to utilise digital technology, mainly smartphone than robust older adults (89.6%). More than 70% of older people owned social media on their smartphones, namely, WhatsApp. The most frequent online activities in both groups were family interaction and obtaining current news. CF older adults were less likely to play games on their smart devices. Usage of digital technology was more common among male, younger age, attained formal education more than 6 years, had a higher monthly household income, and robust participants. Conclusions The usage of digital technology was inversely related to CF status. CF older adults were less likely to integrate digital technology into their daily living compared to robust even though they were familiar with it. The use of digital technology should be reinforced among female, advanced age, widowers/divorcees without formal education and those from lower- or middle-income statuses, and cognitively frail older people.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Md Fadzil, N. H., Shahar, S., Singh, D. K. A., Rajikan, R., Vanoh, D., Mohamad Ali, N., et al. (2023). Digital technology usage among older adults with cognitive frailty: A survey during COVID-19 pandemic. Digital health. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231207594
Vancouver
Md Fadzil NH, Shahar S, Singh DKA, Rajikan R, Vanoh D, Mohamad Ali N, et al. Digital technology usage among older adults with cognitive frailty: A survey during COVID-19 pandemic. Digital health. 2023. doi:10.1177/20552076231207594. PMID: 37868158.
BibTeX
@article{mdfadzil2023-37868158,
author = {Md Fadzil, N. H. and Shahar, S. and Singh, D. K. A. and Rajikan, R. and Vanoh, D. and Mohamad Ali, N. and Mohd Noah, S. A.},
title = {{Digital technology usage among older adults with cognitive frailty: A survey during COVID-19 pandemic}},
journal = {Digital health},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1177/20552076231207594},
pmid = {37868158},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231207594}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- A binary logistic regression was used to determine the sociodemographic factors associated with digital technology use among older adults with CF.
- Results The findings suggest a digital divide between older adults with CF and robust in Malaysia.
- CF older adults were less likely to integrate digital technology into their daily living compared to robust even though they were familiar with it.
Study details
- Effect size72.1%; 89.6%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Digital health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37868158) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “survey”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “survey”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.