Author(s)

Jun Liu ¹, Ying Hu ¹, Junyu Liao ¹

Affiliation(s)

¹ Xiangnan University, Chenzhou, 423000, Hunan Province, China

Corresponding Author

Junyu Liao

ABSTRACT

This study examines the digital inclusion levels among community-dwelling elderly individuals and identifies the key factors influencing their digital engagement against the backdrop of the digital divide. Using a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative survey data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) database and qualitative interviews with elderly residents in Chenzhou City, we investigated the digital technology usage patterns, barriers, and facilitators among adults aged 60 and above. Results indicate that while 65% of elderly participants use digital devices at least weekly, significant disparities exist in proficiency levels and usage complexity. Social support from family and community emerged as the most critical factor influencing digital inclusion, followed by educational background and infrastructure availability. The study found that higher digital inclusion levels were significantly associated with improved quality of life (p < 0.001), enhanced social participation (72% vs. 38%), and stronger interpersonal relationships. These findings highlight the urgent need for comprehensive interventions including community-based training programs, improved digital infrastructure, and family support systems to bridge the digital divide among the elderly population. Policy recommendations emphasize the importance of age-friendly technology design and sustained support mechanisms to ensure equitable digital inclusion for all elderly individuals.

KEYWORDS

Digital Inclusion, Elderly, Digital Divide, Community Support, Quality of Life, Mixed Methods

CITE THIS PAPER

Jun Liu, Ying Hu, Junyu Liao, Digital Inclusion Levels among Community-Dwelling Elderly and Their Influencing Factors: A Mixed-Methods Study. Social Medicine and Health Management (2025) Vol. 6: 38-44. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23977/socmhm.2025.060206.

REFERENCES

[1] Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2017). Activity theory in empirical higher education research: Choices, uses and values. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(2), 125-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1284258
[2] Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., Sharit, J., Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., ... & Nair, S. (2018). Computer proficiency questionnaire: Assessing low and high computer proficient seniors. The Gerontologist, 58(3), 531-539. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw229
[3] Formosa, M. (2019). Active ageing through lifelong learning: The University of the Third Age. In M. Formosa (Ed.), The University of the Third Age and active ageing (pp. 3-18). Springer.
[4] Kuang, Y. (2022). Digital inclusion barriers among elderly groups: Influencing factors, user profiles and policy responses. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 36(1), 46-53.
[5] Liu, M., & Yu, G. (2020). China's second-level digital divide: A study of influencing factors from the perspective of social capital. Modern Communication (Journal of Communication University of China), 42(12), 1-8.
[6] Loos, E., & Ivan, L. (2018). Visual ageism in the media. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-Römer (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on ageism (pp. 163-176). Springer.
[7] Lu, J., & Guo, F. (2021). Bridging the digital divide for elderly people in the digital age. Beijing Observer, 2021(4), 14-15.
[8] Myhre, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Glisky, E. L. (2017). Cognitive benefits of online social networking for healthy older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 72(5), 752-760. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw025
[9] National Bureau of Statistics. (2022). Statistical Communiqué of the People's Republic of China on the 2021 National Economic and Social Development. China Statistics Press.
[10] Nordlund, M., Stenberg, L., & Forsberg, K. (2019). Digital inclusion in Swedish municipalities: An exploratory study of facilitators and barriers. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. giq. 2019.101396
[11] Ragnedda, M. (2017). The third digital divide: A Weberian approach to digital inequalities. Routledge.
[12] Roos, A. (2015). Medical scientists' information practices in the research work context. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 32(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12095
[13] van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
[14] Wildenbos, G. A., Jaspers, M. W., Schijven, M. P., & Dusseljee-Peute, L. W. (2019). Mobile health for older adult patients: Using an aging barriers framework to classify usability problems. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 124, 68-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.01.006
[15] Zhang, S., & Liu, M. (2021). Digital inclusion difficulties and pathways for elderly people in rural areas. China Development, 21(3), 45-52.

Sponsors, Associates, and Links

---

• Information Systems and Economics
  
  
• Accounting, Auditing and Finance
  
  
• Industrial Engineering and Innovation Management
  
  
• Tourism Management and Technology Economy
  
  
• Journal of Computational and Financial Econometrics
  
  
• Financial Engineering and Risk Management
  
  
• Accounting and Corporate Management
  
  
• Social Security and Administration Management
  
  
• Population, Resources & Environmental Economics
  
  
• Statistics & Quantitative Economics
  
  
• Agricultural & Forestry Economics and Management
  
  
• Land Resource Management
  
  
• Information, Library and Archival Science
  
  
• Journal of Human Resource Development
  
  
• Manufacturing and Service Operations Management
  
  
• Operational Research and Cybernetics