A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Digital Technology Use in US Community-Dwelling Seniors With and Without Homebound Status. | LitMetric

Objectives: To examine (1) the prevalence of digital technology use, including information and communication technology devices, everyday technology use, and digital health technology use among community-dwelling older adults with or without homebound status and (2) the associations of digital technology use with homebound status.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Setting And Participants: We used the 2022 National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) data that included 5510 community-dwelling older adults.

Methods: Digital technology use was assessed using self-reported outcomes of the technological environment component of the NHATS, including information and communication technology devices, everyday technology use, and digital health technology use. Homebound status was measured with 4 mobility-related questions regarding the frequency, independence, and difficulties of leaving home. Survey-weighted, binomial logistic regression was used to examine the associations of 17 technological-related outcomes and homebound status.

Results: Overall, the prevalence of homebound older adults was 5.2% (95% CI, 4.4%-6.1%), representing an estimated 2,516,403 people. The prevalence of digital technology use outcomes varied according to homebound status. The prevalence of any technology used in homebound, semi-homebound, and non-homebound populations was 88.5%, 93.3%, and 98.5%, respectively. Compared with non-homebound older adults, semi-homebound older adults had lower odds of emailing (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94), using the internet for any other reason (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99), visiting medical providers (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95), and handling insurance (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99); homebound older adults had lower odds of using a phone (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.59), using any everyday technology (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.89), visiting medical providers (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.76), and handling insurance (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86).

Conclusions And Implications: Non-homebound older adults are more likely to use digital technology than those who are semi-homebound or homebound. Public health care providers should prioritize efforts to enhance digital inclusion to ensure that all older adults can benefit from the advantages of digital technology.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105284DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

digital technology
28
older adults
28
homebound status
16
technology
14
everyday technology
12
technology homebound
12
digital
10
homebound
10
95%
9
technology community-dwelling
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!