OBJECTIVE: Innovations in health information technology (HIT) provide opportunities to reduce health care spending, improve quality of care, and improve health outcomes for older adults. However, concerns relating to older adults' limited access and use of HIT, including use of the Internet for health information, fuel the digital health divide debate. This study evaluated the potential digital health divide in relation to characteristic and belief differences between older adult users and nonusers of online health information sources. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey design was conducted using a random sample of older adults. A total of 225 older adults (age range = 50-92 years, M = 68.9 years, SD = 10.4) participated in the study. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of all respondents had Internet access. Users and nonusers of online health information differed significantly on age (M = 66.29 vs. M = 71.13), education, and previous experience with the health care system. Users and nonusers of online health information also differed significantly on Internet and technology access, however, a large percentage of nonusers had Internet access (56.3%), desktop computers (55.9%), and laptop computers or netbooks (43.2%). Users of online health information had higher mean scores on the Computer Self-Efficacy Measure than nonusers, t(159) = -7.29, p < .0001. CONCLUSION: This study found significant differences between older adult users and nonusers of online health information. Findings suggest strategies for reducing this divide and implications for health education programs to promote HIT use among older adults.
OBJECTIVE: Innovations in health information technology (HIT) provide opportunities to reduce health care spending, improve quality of care, and improve health outcomes for older adults. However, concerns relating to older adults' limited access and use of HIT, including use of the Internet for health information, fuel the digital health divide debate. This study evaluated the potential digital health divide in relation to characteristic and belief differences between older adult users and nonusers of online health information sources. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey design was conducted using a random sample of older adults. A total of 225 older adults (age range = 50-92 years, M = 68.9 years, SD = 10.4) participated in the study. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of all respondents had Internet access. Users and nonusers of online health information differed significantly on age (M = 66.29 vs. M = 71.13), education, and previous experience with the health care system. Users and nonusers of online health information also differed significantly on Internet and technology access, however, a large percentage of nonusers had Internet access (56.3%), desktop computers (55.9%), and laptop computers or netbooks (43.2%). Users of online health information had higher mean scores on the Computer Self-Efficacy Measure than nonusers, t(159) = -7.29, p < .0001. CONCLUSION: This study found significant differences between older adult users and nonusers of online health information. Findings suggest strategies for reducing this divide and implications for health education programs to promote HIT use among older adults.
Authors: Ann Cranney; Annette M O'Connor; Mary J Jacobsen; Peter Tugwell; Jonathan D Adachi; Daylily S Ooi; Lisa Waldegger; Rose Goldstein; George A Wells Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2002-07
Authors: Sara J Czaja; Joseph Sharit; Chin Chin Lee; Sankaran N Nair; Mario A Hernández; Neysarí Arana; Shih Hua Fu Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Holly Jimison; Paul Gorman; Susan Woods; Peggy Nygren; Miranda Walker; Susan Norris; William Hersh Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) Date: 2008-11
Authors: Kendra L Schwartz; Thomas Roe; Justin Northrup; James Meza; Raouf Seifeldin; Anne Victoria Neale Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Emily Guerard; Andrew B Dodge; Jennifer G Le-Rademacher; M Margaret Kemeny; Michael Ojelabi; Mina S Sedrak; Judith Hopkins; Armin Shahrokni; Elizabeth Harlos; Hyman Muss; Harvey Jay Cohen; Jacqueline Lafky; Jeff Sloan; Aminah Jatoi; Arti Hurria Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2021-04
Authors: Haley M LaMonica; Frank Iorfino; Grace Yeeun Lee; Sarah Piper; Jo-An Occhipinti; Tracey A Davenport; Shane Cross; Alyssa Milton; Laura Ospina-Pinillos; Lisa Whittle; Shelley C Rowe; Mitchell Dowling; Elizabeth Stewart; Antonia Ottavio; Samuel Hockey; Vanessa Wan Sze Cheng; Jane Burns; Elizabeth M Scott; Ian B Hickie Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: Kevin Kamis; Mary R Janevic; Nicolle Marinec; Rachel Jantz; Helen Valverde; John D Piette Journal: Global Health Date: 2015-07-04 Impact factor: 4.185
Authors: Eric Tam; Pedro Kondak Villas Boas; Fernando Ruaro; Juliane Flesch; Jennifer Wu; Amelia Thomas; James Li; Felipe Lopes Journal: Geriatrics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-19
Authors: Stephanie Leah Shimada; Cynthia A Brandt; Hua Feng; D Keith McInnes; Sowmya R Rao; James A Rothendler; David A Haggstrom; Erica A Abel; Lisa S Cioffari; Thomas K Houston Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 5.428