| Literature DB >> 31699057 |
Yean Wang1, Huan Zhang2, Tong Feng3, Hongyang Wang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging research on the use of new technology suggests that internet use is generally associated with high levels of efficiency among older adults in the following areas: quality of life, mood, positive psychological well-being, and the individual and societal costs of caring for them. However, there is little empirical evidence specifically concerning the causal effects of older adults' internet use on their depression level. There is a need for more replication studies to help confirm that the emerging evidence on the impact of internet use is accurate and applicable to different populations and in different situations.Entities:
Keywords: Depression; Internet use; Older adults; Propensity score matching
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31699057 PMCID: PMC6839058 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7832-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Covariate measurement and attributes
| Covariates | Measurements | Meanings |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | 1 = male vs. 0 = female | A dichotomous variable |
| Age | Range from 60 to 98 | A continuous variable |
| Urban or Rural | 1 = urban vs. 0 = rural | A dichotomous variable |
| Marital status | 1 = marriage/cohabitation vs. 0 = single/ widowed | A dichotomous variable |
| Living condition | 1 = living alone vs. 0 = living with others | A dichotomous variable |
| Pensions | 1 = yes vs. 0 = no | A dichotomous variable |
| Education background | 1: nursery 2: kindergarten 3: primary school 4: junior high school 5: senior high school 6: college or university | The higher the score, the higher the level of education background |
| Physical health | Range from 1 to 5 | The higher the score, the worse the health status of the participants |
| Life satisfaction | Range from 1 to 5 | The higher the score, the higher the life satisfaction of the participants |
| Intelligence level | Range from 1 to 10 | The higher the score, the higher the intelligence level of the participants marked by interviewers |
Descriptive characteristics of the total sample and the Internet use group before matching
| Variables | Total sample ( | Not Internet users group ( | Internet users group ( | Between not internet users and internet users groups | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ΔMean | t | ||
| Depression level | 15.660 | 5.333 | 15.811 | 5.368 | 13.468 | 4.227 | 2.343*** | 9.647 | .000 |
| Age | 68.181 | 6.615 | 68.359 | 6.669 | 65.600 | 5.134 | 2.759*** | 9.069 | .000 |
| Physical health | 3.587 | 1.185 | 3.601 | 1.196 | 3.381 | 0.988 | .220*** | 4.032 | .000 |
| Life satisfaction | 3.858 | 1.058 | 3.865 | 1.062 | 3.765 | .990 | .100* | 2.098 | .036 |
| Intelligence level | 5.148 | 1.378 | 5.093 | 1.384 | 5.947 | .993 | −0.854*** | −13.560 | .000 |
| Percent | Percent | Percent | ΔPercent | χ2 | |||||
| =0 | =1 | =0 | =1 | =0 | =1 | =1 | |||
| Gender | 49.99 | 50.01 | 50.79 | 49.21 | 38.54 | 61.46 | −12.25*** | 28.41 | .000 |
| Urban or Rural | 53.16 | 46.84 | 56.07 | 43.93 | 11.26 | 88.74 | −44.81*** | 381.42 | .000 |
| Marital status | 17.47 | 82.53 | 17.98 | 82.02 | 10.08 | 89.53 | −7.51*** | 20.51 | .000 |
| Living condition | 93.51 | 6.49 | 93.41 | 6.59 | 94.86 | 5.14 | 1.45 | 1.63 | .201 |
| Pensions | 80.36 | 19.64 | 82.79 | 17.21 | 45.45 | 54.55 | −37.34*** | 417.69 | .000 |
| Education background | – | – | – | – | – | – | *** | 1200 | .000 |
(1) SD standard deviation. (2) * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Logistic regression estimates of Internet use among older adults in China (N = 7779)
| Variables | OR | Std. error | z | [95% Confidence Interval] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | .523 | .402 | −.84 | .399 | [.116, 2.357] |
| Gender | 1.175 | .131 | 1.45 | .148 | [.944, 1.463] |
| Age | .909*** | .010 | −9.39 | .000 | [.890, .927] |
| Urban or Rural | 5.625*** | .862 | 11.27 | .000 | [4.166, 7.596] |
| Marital status | 1.118 | .219 | .57 | .568 | [.762, 1.642] |
| Living condition | 1.157 | .309 | .55 | .585 | [.686, 1.952] |
| Pensions | 1.825*** | .210 | 5.24 | .000 | [1.457, 2.286] |
| Education background | 2.251*** | .103 | 17.79 | .000 | [2.058, 2.461] |
| Physical health | .893* | .045 | −2.27 | .023 | [.809, .985] |
| Life satisfaction | .908 | .049 | −1.77 | .076 | [.817, 1.010] |
| Intelligence level | 1.302*** | .063 | 5.46 | .000 | [1.184. 1.431] |
| Pseudo R2 | 31.8% | ||||
| AUC | .894 |
(1) * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; (2) OR odds ratio, AUC area under receiver operating characteristic line
T-test of covariates between treatment and control group after matching
| Kernel Matching (504 pairs) | Radius Matching (502 pairs) | Nearest-neighbor Matching (506 pairs) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | t | t | t | |||
| Gender | −.48 | .633 | −.49 | .627 | −.19 | .851 |
| Age | −1.15 | .251 | −.95 | .341 | −.55 | .582 |
| Urban or Rural | 1.35 | .178 | .86 | .388 | −.30 | .763 |
| Marital status | −.04 | .966 | −.13 | .899 | −.57 | .570 |
| Living condition | .09 | .929 | .13 | .900 | .39 | .700 |
| Pensions | .21 | .835 | .01 | .991 | .14 | .885 |
| Education background | .65 | .515 | .35 | .728 | .11 | .915 |
| Physical health | −.26 | .795 | −.19 | .848 | −.07 | .941 |
| Life satisfaction | .04 | .971 | −.03 | .975 | −.52 | .601 |
| Intelligence level | .78 | .433 | .63 | .530 | .14 | .886 |
Average treatment effect on the treated in three matching methods
| Matching Method | Depression level | ATT | Bootstrap SE | z | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treated group | Control group | |||||
| Kernel Matching | 11.811 | 12.570 | −.759*** | .179 | −4.24 | .000 |
| Radius Matching | 11.801 | 12.534 | −.734*** | .195 | −3.76 | .000 |
| Nearest-neighbor Matching | 11.796 | 12.359 | −.562* | .240 | −2.34 | .019 |
(1) SE standard error, ATT average treatment effect on the treated; (2) * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001