The Associations Between Digital Exclusion and Physical or Cognitive Function in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract BackgroundDigital exclusion posed a significant challenge, especially in middle-aged and older adults, which affected their health outcomes. However, the evidence regarding the associations of digital exclusion on physical or cognitive function outcomes was controversial, and no systematic review had been performed to synthesize the pooled associations. ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the relationship between digital exclusion and physical or cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and cross-sectional studies, including Chinese or English publications retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang databases up to August 31, 2024. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The pooled effect size was calculated based on odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios, risk ratios, and 95% CIs. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024585459). ResultsNineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 13 cohort studies and 6 cross-sectional studies, which had moderate-to-low risk of bias. The pooled analysis indicated that digital exclusion had prospective associations with decreased basic activities of daily living (incidence rate ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.12‐1.64, I2I2I2I2I2I2I2I2 ConclusionsOur findings indicated the negative associations of digital exclusion with physical and cognitive functions. Future research and clinical practice should consider designing digital interventions and services that match the physical and cognitive capacities and preferences of middle-aged and older adults, thereby improving digital engagement and reducing the harms associated with digital exclusion. Policies should focus on expanding access, reducing financial barriers, and improving digital literacy. However, due to the presence of heterogeneity and publication bias, the results should be interpreted cautiously.