| Literature DB >> 35344502 |
Rachel D Savage1,2,3, Sophia Di Nicolo4, Wei Wu1,2, Joyce Li1,2, Andrea Lawson1,2, Jim Grieve5, Vivek Goel3,6, Paula A Rochon1,2,3,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital technologies have enabled social connection during prolonged periods of physical distancing and travel restrictions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. These solutions may exclude older adults, who are at higher risk for social isolation, loneliness, and severe outcomes if infected with SARS-CoV-2.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; age; communication; connect; connection; digital technology; elderly; factor; family; friend; loneliness; lonely; mental health; older adults; social media; support; usage; video
Year: 2022 PMID: 35344502 PMCID: PMC9177172 DOI: 10.2196/34793
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Aging ISSN: 2561-7605
Characteristics of older women and men who were survey respondents, May 2020.
| Characteristic | All respondents (N=4879), n (%) | Womena (n=3421), n (%) | Mena (n=1397), n (%) | ||||
|
| |||||||
|
| <65 | 1027 (21.1) | 846 (24.8) | 174 (12.5) | |||
|
| 65-79 | 3279 (67.4) | 2295 (67.2) | 945 (67.7) | |||
|
| ≥80 | 557 (11.5) | 275 (8.1) | 276 (19.8) | |||
|
| |||||||
|
| Lives alone | 1415 (29.7) | 1138 (33.9) | 266 (19.7) | |||
|
| Does not live alone | 3347 (70.3) | 2218 (66.1) | 1085 (80.3) | |||
|
| |||||||
|
| Urban | 3962 (83.4) | 2791 (83.4) | 1132 (83.6) | |||
|
| Rural | 751 (15.8) | 531 (15.9) | 209 (15.4) | |||
|
| Outside Canada | 39 (0.8) | 26 (0.8) | 13 (1) | |||
|
| |||||||
|
| Excellent or very good or good | 4370 (89.7) | 3082 (90.2) | 1238 (88.6) | |||
|
| Fair or poor | 492 (10.1) | 330 (9.7) | 154 (11) | |||
|
| Don’t Know | 11 (0.2) | 5 (0.2) | 5 (0.4) | |||
|
| |||||||
|
| White | 4454 (91.6) | 3153 (92.5) | 1264 (90.5) | |||
|
| Non-White | 269 (5.5) | 189 (5.5) | 76 (5.4) | |||
|
| Otherb | 138 (2.8) | 68 (2) | 57 (4.1) | |||
|
| |||||||
|
| Yes | 4113 (84.5) | 2983 (87.3) | 1090 (78.2) | |||
|
| No | 751 (15.4) | 434 (12.7) | 301 (21.6) | |||
|
| Don’t Know | 4 (0.1) | 1 (0) | 3 (0.2) | |||
a61 respondents did not identify their gender.
bIncludes respondents who selected either “Prefer to self-identify” or “Prefer not to say.”
Odds ratios for nonuse of social media or video communications in a sample of older Canadians, May 2020 (N=4526).
| Characteristic | Social media use | Odds ratio | |||||
|
|
| Nonuser, n (%) | User, n (%) | Crude ORa (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| Men | 301 (41) | 1090 (26.8) | 1.90 (1.61-2.23) | 1.60 (1.33-1.92) | ||
|
| Women | 434 (59) | 2983 (73.2) | refb | ref | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| <65 | 103 (13.8) | 924 (22.5) | ref | ref | ||
|
| 65-79 | 488 (65.2) | 2782 (67.8) | 1.57 (1.26-1.97) | 1.24 (0.98-1.57) | ||
|
| ≥80 | 158 (21.1) | 396 (9.7) | 3.58 (2.72-4.71) | 1.88 (1.38-2.55) | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| Yes | 286 (39.2) | 1124 (28) | 1.55 (0.96-2.49) | 1.68 (1.39-2.02) | ||
|
| No | 443 (60.8) | 2896 (72) | ref | ref | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| Yes | 105 (14.5) | 646 (16.2) | 0.88 (0.70-1.10) | 0.90 (0.71-1.14) | ||
|
| No | 618 (85.5) | 3330 (83.8) | ref | ref | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| Excellent or very good or good | 633 (84.6) | 3725 (90.9) | ref | ref | ||
|
| Fair or poor | 115 (15.4) | 375 (9.1) | 1.81 (1.44-2.26) | 1.33 (1.04-1.71) | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| White | 41 (5.6) | 227 (5.7) | ref | ref | ||
|
| Non-White | 689 (94.4) | 3754 (94.3) | 0.98 (0.70-1.39) | 0.85 (0.59-1.22) | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| Very good or good | 647 (87.8) | 3709 (91) | ref | ref | ||
|
| Moderate or poor | 90 (12.2) | 369 (9) | 1.40 (1.09-1.79) | 1.39 (1.06-1.82) | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| Yes | 436 (58.5) | 3460 (84.4) | ref | ref | ||
|
| No | 309 (41.5) | 638 (15.6) | 3.84 (3.25-4.55) | 3.08 (2.58-3.69) | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| Always or often | 82 (11.3) | 321 (8) | 1.37 (1.05-1.78) | 1.05 (0.78-1.41) | ||
|
| Some of the time | 226 (31.1) | 1455 (36.2) | 0.83 (0.70-0.99) | 0.81 (0.67-0.98) | ||
|
| No | 419 (57.6) | 2246 (55.8) | ref | ref | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| High (≥3 times in past week) | 645 (86.1) | 3866 (94.2) | ref | ref | ||
|
| Low (0-2 times in past week) | 104 (13.9) | 236 (5.8) | 2.64 (2.07-3.38) | 2.01 (1.54-2.62) | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| Yes | 248 (33.4) | 1660 (40.6) | ref | ref | ||
|
| No | 494 (66.6) | 2432 (59.4) | 1.36 (1.15-1.60) | 1.44 (1.20-1.71) | ||
bOR: odds ratio.
aRef: reference category.
Themes and illustrative quotes based on free-text responses to the web-based survey, May 2020.
| Theme | Description | Illustrative quotes |
| Technology and virtual connection is beneficial for some older adults to stay connected | Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, some older adults have found using technology to stay connected virtually to be beneficial as they are unable to see people in person. They may be using technology for various activities, including, but not limited to, video calling, emailing, and messaging their friends and family. |
“Zoom, What’s App etc have been excellent platforms for keeping families connected across the globe and for maintaining local social activities such as card games, yoga, book clubs etc.” “I find I'm doing more emails and video-chats, especially with friends and relatives who live alone. Those communications benefit them and me, I feel.” “Zoom app has been very helpful, able to see my mom, family members and girlfriends.” |
| Technology and virtual connection has allowed for some older adults to maintain connections and help to enable their routine | The internet has allowed for older adults to shift their regular activities to the web to facilitate social interactions. Some of those who were previously engaged in various activities with others were able to continue this engagement virtually during the pandemic. In this sense, the move to web-based activities is assisting in maintaining existing relationships and social connections. The theme of routine and regularity was also discussed as older adults indicated activities occurring a certain number of times a week or having scheduled calls with friends and family. |
“My book club, my walking group, my outdoor club and my monthly lunch friends now meet on Zoom.” “Virtual Storytelling on-line events 3 times per week; Church groups three time per week; Book club once a week; weekly family gatherings online; daily work with political social justice groups; long walks in nature; great friends; lots of exercise scheduled at the same time daily” “I participate in a virtual exercise class twice a week, virtual bridge club twice a week and Facetime chats twice a week. Family zoom calls periodically. I text a friend that I am coming by and walk past her house and wave and talk through an open window.” |
| Technology and virtual connection is not a replacement for social interaction | Although technology and virtual connection has been positive for some, there is still critiques that it is not the same as or a replacement for in-person interactions. Respondents indicated that although they are using virtual connection or technology to stay connected now, they still long for that in-person interaction and connection. |
“Although I've connected with family and friends by telephone, it isn't the same as face to face” “Virtual book club however human closeness and touching (i.e. hugs) is imperative for high quality living” “I try to reach out via social media to my best friend daily. I phone family members who are not on social media. However, regardless of the advances of social media, nothing will ever replace face-to-face contact or the human touch.” |