| Literature DB >> 35257090 |
Frankie Ho Chun Wong1,2, Dara Kiu Yi Leung1, Edwin Lok Yan Wong1, Tianyin Liu1, Shiyu Lu3,4, On Fung Chan3, Gloria Hoi Yan Wong1, Terry Yat Sang Lum1.
Abstract
Background: Older adults were perceived as a vulnerable group during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the health and mental health challenges they faced. The pandemic was accompanied by an "infodemic" of overabundant and questionable information that has affected older adults' mental health. As the infodemic and ageist narratives were prevalent online, more anxiety symptoms have been induced among older adults who used social media. Age-friendly communication, advocated by the World Health Organization's Age-friendly City (AFC) guide, could be an antidote by providing tailored information via appropriate channels for older adults. Objective: This study investigated the role of community capacity for age-friendly communication in mitigating anxiety during the pandemic. We hypothesized that age-friendly communication would moderate the effects of infection risks and social media use on anxiety. A double-moderating effect was hypothesized in the context of diminished trust in traditional media.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Hong Kong; information technology; media trust; mental health; social media
Year: 2022 PMID: 35257090 PMCID: PMC8887630 DOI: 10.2196/33029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Infodemiology ISSN: 2564-1891
Figure 1Theoretical framework.
Respondents’ characteristics (N=3421).
| Variables | Total respondents, N | Respondents, n (%) | Mean (SD) | ||
|
|
| ||||
|
| Age (years) | 3421 | —a | 76 (8.9) | |
|
| Gender (female) | 3418 | 2549 (74.58) | — | |
|
| Service nature (community center for older adults) | 3421 | 2666 (77.93) | — | |
|
| Containment Health Index (range 0-100, 119 days) | 3421 | — | 58.5 (8.8) | |
|
|
| ||||
|
| GAD-2b score (range 0-6) | 3388 | — | 0.74 (1.2) | |
|
|
| ||||
|
| Weekly number of COVID-19 cases in district (range 0-135) | 3421 | — | 25.7 (27.5) | |
|
| 3335 | — | 4.27 (0.88) | ||
|
| 1399 | — | 3.18 (1.1) | ||
|
|
| ||||
|
| Used social media for COVID-19 information | 3421 | 1399 (40.89) | — | |
|
| Social media as the main source of COVID-19 information | 3421 | 203 (5.93) | — | |
|
|
| ||||
|
| AFCc-Information index (range 1-6) | 3421 | — | 4.09 (0.21) | |
|
| AFC-Communication Technology index (range 1-6) | 3421 | — | 3.96 (0.13) | |
aNot applicable.
bGAD-2: 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
cAFC: Age-friendly City.
OLSa regression results predicting anxiety level moderated by the AFCb-Information index (N=3385).
| Variables | Baseline | With AFC-Information | Social media use × AFC-Information | COVID-19 risk × AFC-Information | |||||||
| b | b | b | b | ||||||||
| Age | –0.002 | .39 | –0.001 | .44 | –0.003 | .33 | –0.004 | .11 | |||
| Gender (female) | 0.22 | <.001 | 0.22 | <.001 | 0.22 | <.001 | 0.22 | <.001 | |||
| Service nature (aged care) | –0.55 | <.001 | –0.58 | <.001 | –0.59 | <.001 | –0.60 | <.001 | |||
| Containment Health Index | –0.02 | <.001 | –0.02 | <.001 | –0.02 | <.001 | –0.03 | <.001 | |||
| Community COVID-19 risk | 0.002 | .02 | 0.001 | .07 | 0.001 | .05 | 0.14 | <.001 | |||
| Social media use | 0.08 | .04 | 0.08 | .03 | 1.71 | .001 | 0.08 | .03 | |||
| AFC-Information | —c | — | 0.23 | .002 | 0.42 | <.001 | 1.10 | <.001 | |||
| Social media use × AFC-Information | — | — | — | — | –0.39 | .002 | — | — | |||
| COVID-19 risk × AFC-Information | — | — | — | — | — | — | –0.03 | <.001 | |||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.066 | — | 0.069 | — | 0.071 | — | 0.084 | — | |||
aOLS: ordinary least squares.
bAFC: Age-friendly City.
cNot applicable.
OLSa regression results predicting anxiety level moderated by the AFCb-Communication Technology index (N=3385).
| Variables | Baseline | With AFC-Communication Technology | Social media use × AFC-Communication Technology | COVID-19 risk × AFC-Communication Technology | |||||||
| b | b | b | b | ||||||||
| Age | –0.002 | .39 | –0.002 | .33 | –0.003 | .19 | –0.004 | .13 | |||
| Gender (female) | 0.22 | <.001 | 0.21 | <.001 | 0.22 | <.001 | 0.21 | <.001 | |||
| Service nature (aged care) | –0.55 | <.001 | –0.63 | <.001 | –0.62 | <.001 | –0.66 | <.001 | |||
| Containment Health Index | –0.02 | <.001 | –0.03 | <.001 | –0.03 | <.001 | –0.03 | <.001 | |||
| Community COVID-19 risk | 0.002 | .02 | 0.001 | .10 | 0.001 | .18 | 0.20 | <.001 | |||
| Social media use | 0.08 | .04 | 0.07 | .06 | 4.31 | <.001 | 0.05 | .16 | |||
| AFC-Communication Technology | —c | — | 0.99 | <.001 | 1.50 | <.001 | 1.81 | <.001 | |||
| Social media use × AFC-Communication Technology | — | — | — | — | –1.06 | <.001 | — | — | |||
| COVID-19 risk × AFC-Communication Technology | — | — | — | — | — | — | –0.05 | <.001 | |||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.066 | — | 0.076 | — | 0.081 | — | 0.088 | — | |||
aOLS: ordinary least squares.
bAFC: Age-friendly City.
cNot applicable.
Figure 2Moderation effects of AFC-Information and AFC-Communication Technology indexes. AFC: Age-friendly City; GAD-2: 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
OLSa regression results predicting anxiety level, 3-way interaction (N=3300).
| Variables | Baseline | Social media use × media trust | COVID-19 risk × media trust | AFCb-Information double moderation | AFC-Communication Technology double moderation | |||||||||
|
| b | b | b | b | b | |||||||||
| Age | –0.002 | .49 | –0.002 | .43 | –0.002 | .49 | –0.004 | .08 | –0.005 | .08 | ||||
| Gender (female) | 0.20 | <.001 | 0.20 | <.001 | 0.20 | <.001 | 0.20 | <.001 | 0.20 | <.001 | ||||
| Service nature (aged care) | –0.54 | <.001 | –0.54 | <.001 | –0.54 | <.001 | –0.60 | <.001 | –0.63 | <.001 | ||||
| Containment Health Index | –0.02 | <.001 | –0.02 | <.001 | –0.02 | <.001 | –0.02 | <.001 | –0.02 | <.001 | ||||
| Community COVID-19 risk | 0.002 | .02 | 0.002 | .02 | 0.003 | .46 | 0.38 | <.001 | 0.12 | .40 | ||||
| Social media use for COVID-19 information | 0.06 | .11 | 0.40 | .01 | 0.06 | .11 | 9.4 | <.001 | 10.4 | .01 | ||||
| Traditional media trust | –0.04 | .08 | –0.002 | .96 | –0.04 | .24 | 2.7 | <.001 | 0.73 | .46 | ||||
| Social media use × media trust | —c | — | –0.08 | .02 | — | — | –1.7 | .002 | –1.5 | .12 | ||||
| COVID-19 risk × media trust | — | — | — | — | –0.000 | .77 | –0.06 | .01 | 0.02 | .64 | ||||
| AFC-Information | — | — | — | — | — | — | 4.0 | <.001 | — | — | ||||
| Social media use × AFC-Information | — | — | — | — | — | — | –2.2 | <.001 | — | — | ||||
| COVID-19 risk × AFC-Information | — | — | — | — | — | — | –0.09 | <.001 | — | — | ||||
| Social media use × media trust × AFC-Information | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.40 | .003 | — | — | ||||
| COVID-19 risk × media trust × AFC-Information | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.01 | .01 | — | — | ||||
| AFC-Communication Technology | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3.0 | .004 | ||||
| Social media use × AFC-Communication Technology | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | –2.5 | .01 | ||||
| COVID-19 risk × AFC-Communication Technology | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | –0.03 | .42 | ||||
| Social media use × media trust × AFC-Communication Technology | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.35 | .14 | ||||
| COVID-19 risk × media trust × AFC-Communication Technology | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | –0.004 | .62 | ||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.065 | — | 0.066 | — | 0.065 | — | 0.092 | — | 0.092 | — | ||||
aOLS: ordinary least squares.
bAFC: Age-friendly City.
cNot applicable.
Summary of the 3-way interaction on anxiety level.
| AFCa-Information index | Media trust | Association between social media use for COVID-19 information and anxiety | Association between weekly number of COVID-19 cases and anxiety |
| Low | High | Insignificant | Weaker |
| Low | Low | Stronger | Stronger |
| High | High | Insignificant | Insignificant |
| High | Low | Insignificant | Insignificant |
aAFC: Age-friendly City.
Figure 3Double-moderation effect of the AFC-Information index. AFC: Age-friendly City; GAD-2: 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder.