| Literature DB >> 35186840 |
Wei Yuan1, Min Jiang2, Shuying Gong3.
Abstract
In the context of the rapid development of the internet and the increasing severity of the aging problem, and in order to promote aged health and help construct a healthy society. We use micro survey data from the 2016 China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) to investigate the impact of the internet on the cognitive health of middle-aged and elderly people (those aged 40 and above). The robust results suggest that the internet plays a significant positive role in the cognitive health of middle-aged and elderly people in terms of internet use and internet involvement. This effect does not change significantly with differences in gender, household registration, location, or household composition, but there are heterogeneity effects due to differences in education. Further analysis indicates that the satisfaction of emotional attachment with children is the internal mechanism of the internet's influence on the cognitive health of people in this age group. Our paper both help scholars and the public to better understand the impact of the internet on the cognitive health of middle-aged and elderly people and clarifies different methods of defining the internet.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive health; heterogeneity; internet involvement; internet use; satisfaction of emotional attachment with children
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35186840 PMCID: PMC8855359 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.799255
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Descriptive statistics.
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | |||||
| Cognitive health | 12,685 | 2.922 | 1.284 | 1 | 5 |
| Independent variables | |||||
| Internet use | 12,702 | 0.104 | 0.305 | 0 | 1 |
| Internet involvement | 12,699 | 1.222 | 0.771 | 1 | 7 |
| Control variables | |||||
| Gender (Male = 1) | 14,155 | 0.489 | 0.500 | 0 | 1 |
| Age | 14,167 | 52.549 | 9.220 | 40 | 88 |
| Years of education | 13,612 | 4.774 | 4.796 | 0 | 19 |
| Marital status (Married = 1) | 35,606 | 0.995 | 0.072 | 0 | 1 |
| Political status (Yes = 1) | 14,157 | 0.105 | 0.307 | 0 | 1 |
| Nonagricultural population (Yes = 1) | 29,733 | 0.254 | 0.436 | 0 | 1 |
| Smoking (Yes = 1) | 12,689 | 0.765 | 1.260 | 0 | 3.714 |
| Exercise (Yes = 1) | 35,606 | 0.801 | 0.400 | 0 | 1 |
| Break time (Yes = 1) | 12,701 | 0.569 | 0.495 | 0 | 1 |
| Medicare insurance (Yes = 1) | 14,137 | 0.932 | 0.252 | 0 | 1 |
| Log of per capita income | 14,127 | 9.331 | 1.005 | 6.727 | 11.918 |
| Provincial (urban) level GDP | 14,316 | 10.112 | 0.669 | 6.935 | 11.196 |
| Municipality (Yes = 1) | 14,316 | 0.112 | 0.316 | 0 | 1 |
| Eastern area (Yes = 1) | 14,316 | 0.472 | 0.499 | 0 | 1 |
| Central area (Yes = 1) | 14,316 | 0.290 | 0.454 | 0 | 1 |
In the robustness tests, we also control variables such as whether the household uses tap water, the local level of medical care, and the local environmental quality. Due to space limitations, we do not report the results for these variables, which can be obtained from the authors on request.
Figure 1Relationship between internet use and cognitive health of middle-aged and elderly people (horizontal axis shows internet use, vertical axis shows cognitive health).
Figure 2Relationship between internet involvement and cognitive health of middle-aged and elderly people (horizontal axis shows internet involvement, vertical axis shows cognitive health).
Model results for the effect of the internet on the cognitive health of middle-aged and elderly people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet use | 0.693*** | 0.183*** | 0.173*** | |||
| (Use = 1) | (0.031) | (0.035) | (0.035) | |||
| Internet | 0.265*** | 0.074*** | 0.071*** | |||
| involvement | (0.012) | (0.014) | (0.014) | |||
| Age | −0.009*** | −0.009*** | −0.009*** | −0.010*** | ||
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |||
| Gender | 0.201*** | 0.198** | 0.202*** | 0.200*** | ||
| (Male = 1) | (0.024) | (0.024) | (0.024) | (0.024) | ||
| Years of | 0.034*** | 0.035*** | 0.034*** | 0.035*** | ||
| education | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | ||
| Marital status | 0.191** | 0.182** | 0.190** | 0.181** | ||
| (Married = 1) | (0.088) | (0.088) | (0.088) | (0.088) | ||
| Political status | 0.104*** | 0.109*** | 0.098*** | 0.104*** | ||
| (Yes = 1) | (0.033) | (0.033) | (0.033) | (0.033) | ||
| Nonagricultural | 0.110*** | 0.096*** | 0.112*** | 0.098*** | ||
| population | (0.025) | (0.026) | (0.025) | (0.026) | ||
| Medical | 0.056 | 0.063 | 0.056 | 0.063 | ||
| (Yes = 1) | (0.039) | (0.039) | (0.039) | (0.039) | ||
| Per capita | 0.169*** | 0.159*** | 0.169*** | 0.159*** | ||
| income | (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.011) | ||
| Exercise | 0.105*** | 0.106*** | 0.106*** | 0.107*** | ||
| (Yes = 1) | (0.020) | (0.020) | (0.020) | (0.020) | ||
| Break | −0.025 | −0.017 | −0.024 | −0.017 | ||
| (Yes = 1) | (0.020) | (0.020) | (0.020) | (0.020) | ||
| Smoking | 0.028*** | 0.028*** | 0.029*** | 0.029*** | ||
| (0.009) | (0.009) | (0.009) | (0.009) | |||
| Provincial | 0.094*** | 0.140*** | 0.095*** | 0.140*** | ||
| (urban) GDP | (0.015) | (0.020) | (0.015) | (0.020) | ||
| Municipality | 0.159*** | 0.160*** | ||||
| (Yes = 1) | (0.037) | (0.037) | ||||
| Eastern area | −0.108*** | −0.106*** | ||||
| (Yes = 1) | (0.036) | (0.036) | ||||
| Central area | −0.117*** | −0.117*** | ||||
| (Yes = 1) | (0.031) | (0.031) | ||||
| LR chi2 | 504.83*** | 1,802.85*** | 1,834.38*** | 465.11*** | 1,802.99*** | 1,834.72*** |
| R2 | 0.0126 | 0.0471 | 0.0479 | 0.0116 | 0.0471 | 0.048 |
| Observations | 12,685 | 12,131 | 12,131 | 12,682 | 12,129 | 12,129 |
The results reported in columns (1)–(6) are the original estimation coefficient, not the marginal effect. The value in parentheses is the standard error.
*** and ** represent significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
Results of robustness checks.
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet use | 0.175*** | 0.171*** | 0.166*** | |||
| (0.035) | (0.036) | (0.032) | ||||
| Internet involvement | 0.072*** | 0.071*** | 0.084*** | |||
| (0.014) | (0.014) | (0.015) | ||||
| Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| City dummy | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| LR chi2 | 1834.41*** | 1835.00*** | 1843.96*** | 1845.12*** | 1117.18*** | 1838.20*** |
| R2 | 0.0479 | 0.0480 | 0.0484 | 0.0484 | 0.0422 | 0.0481 |
| Observations | 12,130 | 12,128 | 12,085 | 12,083 | 8,412 | 12,126 |
|
|
|
| ||||
| Internet use | 0.298*** | 0.183*** | ||||
| (0.043) | (0.035) | |||||
| Internet involvement | 0.128*** | 0.074*** | ||||
| (0.018) | (0.014) | |||||
| Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES | ||
| City dummy | YES | YES | YES | YES | ||
| LR chi2 | 1309.55*** | 1316.09*** | 1802.85*** | 1802.99*** | ||
| R2 | 0.0845 | 0.0850 | 0.0471 | 0.0471 | ||
| Observations | 12,148 | 12,146 | 12,131 | 12,129 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Breadth | Unmatched | 3.657 | 2.839 | 0.818 | 0.038 | 21.79 |
| ATT | 3.657 | 3.442 | 0.215 | 0.060 | 3.57 | |
| Depth | Unmatched | 3.687 | 2.844 | 0.843 | 0.039 | 21.65 |
| ATT | 3.687 | 3.422 | 0.265 | 0.068 | 3.90 | |
In the robustness test that changed the measurement of cognitive health, we use word recognition ability, which includes measurements of memory, word recognition, and mathematical ability. When changing the age range of the samples, we controlled the samples for 35 years old and above and 45 years old and above, respectively. The PSM analysis method reports the results obtained using the nearest neighbor matching method, in which the results of ATU and ATE are similar to those of ATT. In addition, we used radius and kernel matching to carry out correlation analysis. Due to space limitations, we do not report all the robustness test results, which can be obtained from the authors on request.
*** .
Results of heterogeneity analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet use | 0.134 (0.126) | 0.240*** (0.037) | ||
| Internet involvement | 0.067 (0.072) | 0.099*** (0.014) | ||
| LR chi2 | 363.99*** | 705.50*** | 363.71*** | 711.29*** |
| R2 | 0.0227 | 0.0315 | 0.0226 | 0.0317 |
| Observations | 5,258 | 7,222 | 5,258 | 7,219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Internet use | 0.282*** (0.046) | 0.127*** (0.057) | ||
| Internet involvement | 0.140*** (0.021) | 0.046** (0.020) | ||
| LR chi2 | 1,083.45*** | 297.20*** | 1,090.32*** | 297.36*** |
| R2 | 0.0333 | 0.0465 | 0.0335 | 0.0466 |
| Observations | 10,360 | 2,120 | 10,359 | 2,118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Internet use | 0.285*** (0.037) | 0.100 (0.109) | ||
| Internet involvement | 0.126*** (0.016) | 0.025 (0.033) | ||
| LR chi2 | 1,488.66*** | 171.86*** | 1,493.31*** | 172.34*** |
| R2 | 0.0400 | 0.0829 | 0.0401 | 0.0833 |
| Observations | 11,805 | 675 | 11,803 | 674 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Internet use | 0.196*** (0.047) | 0.146** (0.059) | ||
| Internet involvement | 0.077*** (0.018) | 0.068** (0.026) | ||
| LR chi2 | 485.46*** | 907.42*** | 486.71*** | 907.83*** |
| R2 | 0.0434 | 0.0341 | 0.0436 | 0.0342 |
| Observations | 3,634 | 8,497 | 3,632 | 8,497 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Internet use | 0.170*** (0.047) | 0.179*** (0.055) | ||
| Internet involvement | 0.061*** (0.018) | 0.086*** (0.022) | ||
| LR chi2 | 701.68*** | 867.41*** | 699.66*** | 869.83*** |
| R2 | 0.0370 | 0.0457 | 0.0369 | 0.0458 |
| Observations | 6,056 | 6,075 | 6,055 | 6,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Internet use | 0.171*** (0.048) | 0.205*** (0.053) | ||
| Internet involvement | 0.077*** (0.020) | 0.075*** (0.020) | ||
| LR chi2 | 802.85*** | 933.62*** | 804.84*** | 932.20*** |
| R2 | 0.0442 | 0.0466 | 0.0444 | 0.0466 |
| Observations | 5,764 | 6,367 | 5,762 | 6,367 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Internet use | 0.155*** (0.056) | 0.185*** (0.047) | ||
| Internet involvement | 0.082*** (0.022) | 0.064*** (0.019) | ||
| LR chi2 | 602.72*** | 1,193.86*** | 609.22*** | 1,188.16*** |
| R2 | 0.0479 | 0.0479 | 0.0484 | 0.0477 |
| Observations | 3,998 | 7,894 | 3,998 | 7,892 |
| Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES |
We also analyzed whether individuals lived in the central region or in municipalities. Due to space limitations, we do not report these results, which can be obtained from the authors on request.
*** and ** represent significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
Causal stepwise regression results for the mediating effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | Cognitive health | 1 Attachment with children | Cognitive health | Cognitive health | 1 Attachment with children | Cognitive health |
| Column | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| Internet use | 0.173*** | 0.302*** | 0.129** | |||
| (0.035) | (0.056) | (0.056) | ||||
| Internet involvement | 0.071*** | 0.156*** | 0.069*** | |||
| (0.014) | (0.025) | (0.025) | ||||
| Child attachment | 0.042*** | 0.041*** | ||||
| (0.006) | (0.006) | |||||
| Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| City dummy | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| LR chi2 | 1,834.38*** | 882.26*** | 1,075.92*** | 1,834.72*** | 892.22*** | 1,078.70*** |
| R2 | 0.0479 | 0.0335 | 0.0475 | 0.0480 | 0.0339 | 0.0476 |
| Observations | 12,131 | 7,202 | 7,190 | 12,129 | 7,201 | 7,189 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dependent variable | Cognitive health | 2 Attachment with children | Cognitive health | Cognitive health | 2 Attachment with children | Cognitive health |
| Column | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) | (12) |
| Internet use | 0.173*** | 0.091*** | 0.138** | |||
| (0.035) | (0.026) | (0.056) | ||||
| Internet involvement | 0.071*** | 0.048*** | 0.074*** | |||
| (0.014) | (0.011) | (0.025) | ||||
| Child attachment 2 | 0.122*** | 0.121*** | ||||
| (0.025) | (0.025) | |||||
| Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| City dummy | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| LR chi2 | 1,834.38*** | 1,055.80*** | 1,834.72*** | 1,058.85*** | ||
| F | 40.16*** | 40.38*** | ||||
| R2 | 0.0479 | 0.0821 | 0.0466 | 0.0480 | 0.0825 | 0.0467 |
| Observations | 12,131 | 7,202 | 7,190 | 12,129 | 7,201 | 7,189 |
“1 Attachment with children” represents the mediator variable measured using the first method; “2 Attachment with children” represents the mediator variable measured using the second method. Due to space limitations, the results of other variables have not been reported and can be obtained from the authors on request.
*** and ** represent significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
Bootstrap analysis results for the mediating effect.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Attachment with children | Indirect effect | 0.102 | 0.154 | 0.044 | 0.067 |
| Direct effect | 0.673 | 0.879 | 0.278 | 0.367 | |
| 2 Attachment with children | Indirect effect | 0.064 | 0.104 | 0.027 | 0.045 |
| Direct effect | 0.718 | 0.923 | 0.298 | 0.386 |
“1 Attachment with children” represents the mediator variable measured using the first method; “2 Attachment with children” represents the mediator variable measured using the second method.
Figure 3The framework.