| Literature DB >> 35954933 |
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Under the overlapping interaction of digitization and aging, the number of elderly Internet users has increased yearly. However, the impact of Internet use on the social networks of the elderly is still unclear.Entities:
Keywords: internet use; older adults; social networks; social participation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954933 PMCID: PMC9367896 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Descriptive statistical results of samples.
| Variable | Mean/% | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | |||
| Social network size | 1.728 | 0.968 | |
| Social network heterogeneity | 2.680 | 2.649 | |
| Social network upper reachability | 2.982 | 1.996 | |
| Independent variable | |||
| Internet use | 0.241 | 0.428 | |
| Mediating variable | |||
| Social participation | 1.004 | 1.976 | |
| Control variable | |||
| Gender (%) | Men | 48.79 | |
| Women | 51.21 | ||
| Age | 69.29 | 7.432 | |
| Marital status (%) | Have spouse | 73.59 | |
| No spouse | 26.41 | ||
| Education (%) | Illiteracy | 24.06 | |
| Literacy | 75.94 | ||
| Religious relief (%) | Irreligion | 88.41 | |
| Profess a religion | 11.59 | ||
| Political status (%) | Communist | 15.26 | |
| Noncommunist | 84.74 | ||
| Individual annual income (ln) | 8.183 | 3.488 | |
| Self-rated health | 3.012 | 1.111 | |
| Non-agricultural work (%) | Engaged | 7.70 | |
| Not engaged | 92.30 | ||
| Living style (%) | Living alone | 20.85 | |
| Living with others | 79.15 | ||
| Number of children | 2.430 | 1.537 | |
| Type of hukou (%) | City | 40.94 | |
| Rural | 59.06 | ||
| Family size | 2.505 | 1.649 | |
| Annual household income (ln) | 9.770 | 2.379 | |
| Region (%) | Western | 21.50 | |
| Central | 32.36 | ||
| Eastern | 46.15 |
Regression analysis of the influence of Internet use on the social networks of the elderly.
| Social Network Size | Social Network | Social Network | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internet use | 0.277 *** | 1.206 *** | 0.619 *** |
| (0.072) | (0.200) | (0.150) | |
| Gender (reference: women) | 0.005 | 0.161 | 0.059 |
| (0.057) | (0.158) | (0.118) | |
| Age | −0.012 *** | −0.009 | −0.002 |
| (0.004) | (0.012) | (0.009) | |
| Marital status (reference: no spouse) | 0.101 | −0.021 | −0.004 |
| (0.083) | (0.230) | (0.172) | |
| Education (reference: illiteracy) | 0.054 | 0.261 | 0.258 * |
| (0.071) | (0.196) | (0.146) | |
| Religious belief (reference: irreligion) | −0.021 | −0.246 | −0.207 |
| (0.090) | (0.248) | (0.186) | |
| Political status (reference: noncommunist) | 0.240 *** | 0.425 * | 0.534 *** |
| (0.080) | (0.220) | (0.165) | |
| Individual annual income | 0.014 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| (0.010) | (0.027) | (0.020) | |
| Self-rated health | 0.084 *** | 0.092 | 0.064 |
| (0.025) | (0.070) | (0.053) | |
| Non-agricultural work (reference: not engaged) | 0.515 *** | 0.439 | 0.321 |
| (0.101) | (0.280) | (0.210) | |
| Living style (reference: living alone) | 0.141 | 0.042 | −0.084 |
| (0.090) | (0.248) | (0.186) | |
| Number of children | 0.027 | −0.058 | 0.010 |
| (0.020) | (0.056) | (0.042) | |
| Type of hukou (reference: rural) | −0.014 | 0.506 *** | 0.228 |
| (0.068) | (0.187) | (0.140) | |
| Family size | 0.022 | −0.010 | 0.007 |
| (0.018) | (0.050) | (0.038) | |
| Annual household income | 0.028 * | 0.069 * | 0.052 * |
| (0.015) | (0.040) | (0.030) | |
| Region (Western) | |||
| Central | 0.155 ** | 0.280 | 0.141 |
| (0.074) | (0.203) | (0.152) | |
| Eastern | −0.006 | −0.257 | 0.190 |
| (0.079) | (0.217) | (0.163) | |
| N | 1363 | 1363 | 1363 |
| R2 | 0.122 | 0.110 | 0.113 |
Noted: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Sample balance test.
| Variable | Matching | Treatment | Control Group | Deviation | Deviation Reduction (%) | T |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Unmatching | 0.574 | 0.478 | 19.4 | 82.4 | 2.87 | 0.004 |
| Matching | 0.566 | 0.583 | −3.4 | −0.41 | 0.685 | ||
| Age | Unmatching | 66.965 | 69.916 | −42.2 | 98.6 | −6.01 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 67.168 | 67.128 | 0.6 | 0.07 | 0.941 | ||
| Marital status | Unmatching | 0.858 | 0.714 | 35.6 | 96.3 | 4.96 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 0.853 | 0.848 | 1.3 | 0.18 | 0.859 | ||
| Education | Unmatching | 0.972 | 0.700 | 79.0 | 98.4 | 9.89 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 0.971 | 0.967 | 1.3 | 0.31 | 0.760 | ||
| Religious belief | Unmatching | 0.080 | 0.104 | −8.5 | 49.1 | −1.23 | 0.220 |
| Matching | 0.082 | 0.070 | 4.3 | 0.56 | 0.577 | ||
| Political status | Unmatching | 0.311 | 0.101 | 53.8 | 73.6 | 8.99 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 0.290 | 0.346 | −14.2 | −1.41 | 0.159 | ||
| Individual annual income | Unmatching | 10.129 | 7.636 | 85.5 | 93.1 | 11.30 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 10.075 | 9.904 | 5.9 | 1.01 | 0.311 | ||
| Self-rated Health | Unmatching | 3.346 | 2.931 | 39.1 | 98.5 | 5.67 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 3.326 | 3.320 | 0.6 | 0.08 | 0.940 | ||
| Non-agricultural work | Unmatching | 0.152 | 0.058 | 31.2 | 87.4 | 5.23 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 0.136 | 0.148 | −3.9 | −0.40 | 0.687 | ||
| Living style | Unmatching | 0.145 | 0.227 | −21.1 | 72.5 | −2.99 | 0.003 |
| Matching | 0.151 | 0.128 | 5.8 | 0.76 | 0.446 | ||
| Number of children | Unmatching | 1.595 | 2.65 | −78.1 | 95.9 | −10.71 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 1.613 | 1.656 | −3.2 | −0.50 | 0.619 | ||
| Type of hukou | Unmatching | 0.889 | 0.491 | 95.4 | 97.1 | 12.77 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 0.885 | 0.874 | 2.8 | 0.42 | 0.673 | ||
| Family size | Unmatching | 2.426 | 2.455 | −1.8 | −345.0 | −0.27 | 0.788 |
| Matching | 2.423 | 2.554 | −8.0 | −1.04 | 0.299 | ||
| Annual household income | Unmatching | 11.094 | 9.385 | 90.2 | 99.0 | 11.50 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 11.038 | 11.056 | −0.9 | −0.18 | 0.856 | ||
| Region | Unmatching | 1.367 | 1.882 | −70.6 | 90.8 | −10.10 | 0.000 |
| Matching | 1.370 | 1.322 | 6.5 | 0.89 | 0.375 |
Noted: In the table, K nearest neighbor matching method in the caliper is adopted (K = 4), and other test results have passed the balance test.
ATT values of Internet use on the social networks of the elderly.
| Variables | Matching Method | ATT | Bootstrap SE | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social network size | K nearest neighbor matching in caliper | 0.281 | 0.125 | 2.60 ** |
| Radius matching | 0.271 | 0.102 | 2.79 *** | |
| Kernel matching | 0.271 | 0.110 | 2.79 *** | |
| Social network heterogeneity | K nearest neighbor matching in caliper | 1.000 | 0.326 | 3.48 *** |
| Radius matching | 0.921 | 0.278 | 3.51 *** | |
| Kernel matching | 0.928 | 0.279 | 3.53 *** | |
| Social network upper reachability | K nearest neighbor matching in caliper | 0.536 | 0.241 | 2.67 *** |
| Radius matching | 0.482 | 0.204 | 2.53 ** | |
| Kernel matching | 0.487 | 0.196 | 2.55 ** |
Noted: K nearest neighbor matching in caliper (K = 4, caliper value = 0.05); Radius matching caliper value = 0.05; Kernel matching uses the default kernel function and bandwidth; Bootstrap sampling is set to 1000 times; *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05; SE means standard errors.
Regression results of the instrumental variable.
| Variable | One-Stage | Two-Stage | Two-Stage | Two-Stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet use | 0.620 *** | 1.689 *** | 1.295 *** | |
| Instrumental | 0.319 *** | |||
| Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| One-stage F value | 198.759 | |||
| Endogenous test | 0.000 |
Noted: *** p < 0.01.
Bootstrap mediation test results.
| Action Path | Effect | Coefficient | Bootstrap SE | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet use-Social network size | Direct effect | 0.237 | 0.080 | 0.082 | 0.394 |
| Indirect effect | 0.026 | 0.014 | 0.003 | 0.059 | |
| Internet use-Social network heterogeneity | Direct effect | 0.960 | 0.213 | 0.554 | 1.377 |
| Indirect effect | 0.206 | 0.065 | 0.102 | 0.357 | |
| Internet use-Social networks upper reachability | Direct effect | 0.530 | 0.146 | 0.257 | 0.820 |
| Indirect effect | 0.087 | 0.029 | 0.040 | 0.156 |
Noted: SE means standard errors; LLCI and ULCI represents the Lower and the Upper 95% confidence interval respectively.
Analysis of the influence of Internet use on the social network of the different elderly groups.
| Variable | Gender | Age | Type of Hukou | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | 60–69 | 70 and over | City | Rural | |
| Social network size | 0.221 ** | 0.344 *** | 0.293 *** | 0.252 ** | 0.306 *** | 0.214 |
| Social network heterogeneity | 1.625 *** | 0.760 *** | 1.442 *** | 0.664 ** | 1.196 *** | 2.138 *** |
| Social network upper reachability | 0.831 *** | 0.495 ** | 0.911 *** | 0.110 | 0.684 *** | 0.721 * |
Noted: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.