Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Aim:

To examine the role of digital literacy, technophobia, technophilia and trust in technology in cognitively healthy older adults and their implications for autonomy and well-being.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study was conducted with 334 older adults (≥70 years; 60% women) living independently in residential care facilities in Italy. Participants completed a paper-based questionnaire assessing demographics, smart device ownership, trust in technology, digital skills, and technophobia/technophilia. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, MANOVA, correlation and regression analyses.

Findings:

Digital literacy correlated positively with trust and negatively with technophobia. Men showed greater device ownership, enthusiasm for technology and creative digital skills. Technophobia emerged as a barrier to technology adoption, with potential implications for autonomy and access to health resources.

Conclusions:

Tailored digital literacy interventions can reduce technophobia, promote digital inclusion, and improve autonomy in older adults. Healthcare professionals should lead these initiatives to support healthy ageing in a digitalised world.

Keywords

digital competence technophobia technophilia trust in technology older adults digital care

What this paper adds

Reveals how attitudes towards technology, such as trust and fear, are linked to older adults’ digital competencies.

Identifies emotional responses to technology as a critical factor influencing older adults’ ability to live independently.

Applications of study findings

Suggests that education efforts focussed on emotional comfort with technology may be more effective than purely technical training.

Highlights a new role for gerontology professionals in guiding older adults towards confident tech use.

Provides insight for care settings and policymakers to design environments that foster positive digital experiences for the elderly.

Introduction

Technology is a fundamental component of modern society, reshaping the way individuals live, interact and access services, particularly in the context of smart cities (Di Giacomo et al., 2020; Sovacool & Furszyfer Del Rio, 2020). For these technologies to fulfil their potential to improve comfort, safety, and quality of life, it is critical that citizens adopt and understand them (Gracias et al., 2023). However, technology adoption is not uniform across populations; while technophiles enthusiastically embrace innovation, others experience technophobia, a fear of modern technologies that can significantly hinder their engagement (Seberini & Tokovska, 2022; Smrke et al., 2025). This divide is particularly pronounced among older adults, contributing to the digital divide and limiting access to resources that support health and autonomy (Nimrod, 2018).

Digital exclusion among older people is increasingly recognised as a social determinant of health, affecting access to telehealth services, communication tools, and health information. Barriers such as technostress-feelings of overload, complexity, and loss of control when adapting to technology-can exacerbate psychological distress and reduce quality of life (Marchiori et al., 2019; Nedeljko et al., 2024; Nisafani et al., 2020). Older adults, particularly those over 70, may face additional challenges due to cognitive and physical limitations, resulting in psychological barriers to technology use (Nimrod, 2021; Seberini et al., 2022). These barriers have been associated with lower life satisfaction, increased isolation and fragile ageing, particularly during times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Nimrod, 2018, 2022).

Research shows that improving digital literacy – the ability to use and interact with digital devices – can reduce technophobia, increase autonomy and support healthy ageing (N. Daruwala, 2024; Xi et al., 2022). Gender differences also persist, with older men often having higher digital skills, device ownership, and enthusiasm for technology than women (N. Daruwala, 2024). Meanwhile, trust in technology, influenced by perceived ease of use and usefulness, is an important predictor of adoption (Marchiori et al., 2019). However, technophobia remains a significant barrier, highlighting the need for targeted digital literacy interventions to promote technology adoption in this population (Carenzio et al., 2021; Nimrod, 2018).

Given the potential of technology to support the independence of older adults, this study introduces the concept of ‘digital care’ - an approach that aims to integrate technology as a tool for autonomy, health promotion and decision making. Digital care involves not only teaching older adults how to use technological devices, but also addressing psychological barriers such as technophobia and fostering positive attitudes towards technology (Schlomann et al., 2020). By increasing digital literacy and reducing anxiety, digital care can empower older adults to stay connected, informed and engaged, ultimately supporting healthier ageing.

This study focuses on the interplay between technophobia, technophilia, digital literacy, and trust in technology among cognitively healthy older adults aged 70 and older. Unlike previous studies that have examined a younger and more diverse population (N. Daruwala, 2024), our focus is on a specific cohort of cognitively healthy older people. By understanding these factors, we aim to provide insights that can inform interventions to reduce technophobia, promote digital inclusion, and improve older adults’ autonomy, well-being, and access to health resources.

Methodology

Participants

A non-probabilistic convenience sample of 334 people aged over 70 years (60% women) with a mean age of 75 years (M = 75.3, SD = 4.2) was used. Participants lived independently and without cognitive impairment in four nursing homes in Italy belonging to the same religious order. Inclusion criteria: Age over 70 years; living independently; no cognitive impairment; resident in one of the order’s four residences.

The sample size, while modest, is justified by challenges in recruiting older adults in residential settings, including accessibility barriers and participation hesitancy. The study adheres to STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies.

Recruitment and Selection Procedure

Eligible participants were invited to attend an information session where the purpose, procedures, and ethical considerations of the study were explained. Researchers addressed all questions, and participation was voluntary, with informed consent obtained.

Instruments

Data were collected using three scales and socio-demographic data such as age, gender and number of smart technology devices in their daily lives, and three scales assessing technology confidence, digital literacy, and technophobia/technophilia.

*Technophobia and technophilia: Technophobia and technophilia were measured using scales adapted for Spanish and Italian (Martínez-Córcoles et al., 2017). This questionnaire was chosen because it measures both technophilia and technophobia, and the items of the technophobia subscale are less extreme than those used by Khasawneh (2018), allowing for a more in-depth examination of a broader spectrum of technophobia. The unifactorial technophobia scale consists of 12 items, including, for example, ‘I have an irrational fear of new equipment or technology’. The reliability of technophobia in this study was α = .882. According to Martínez-Córcoles et al. (2017), technophilia is a construct consisting of three factors, each measured by a separate subscale: enthusiasm (eight items; α = .866 in this study; example: ‘I get excited about new equipment or technology’), dependence (six items, α = .638; example: ‘I have spent more time using new equipment or technology than is reasonable’) and reputation (four items, α = .823; example: ‘I am afraid of failure if I cannot use the latest equipment or technology’). For the purposes of this study, the items were adapted to address smart home technology by changing the term ‘technology’ to ‘smart home technology’. All items were answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Trust in smart home technology: The Trust in Smart Home Technology Survey (Cannizzaro et al., 2020) consists of eight items that measure trust in different aspects of privacy, security, competence and benevolence of smart home devices. For example, one item is ‘I would be completely confident that smart home devices will not fail and will work as I expect them to’. The reliability in this study was α = .839. Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Digital skills: Digital skills were measured using the short version of the digital skills scale developed by Van Deursen et al. (2014). It contains a total of 23 items; 5 items measure operational skills (OP), for example, ‘I know how to upload files’ (α = .764); five items measure navigational skills (NAV), for example, ‘I find it difficult to find a website I have previously visited’ (α = . 618); five items examine social skills (SOC), e.g., I know when I should and should not share information online’ (α = .739); five items examine creativity (CRE), e.g., ‘I know how to design a website’ (α = .703); and three items measure mobile use (MOB), e.g., ‘I know how to instal applications on a mobile device’ (α = .576). For Italian participants, items were translated into Italian. Each item was answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 5 (very true for me). The overall reliability of the scale is α = .641.

Intention to use and recommendation of smart home technology: This was measured using two items assessing intention to use and intention to recommend (IUR) on a five-point Likert scale from Cannizzaro et al. (2020).

Data Collection Procedure

Data were collected between April and August 2024 using paper-based questionnaires, administered in person by trained researchers. Participants received guidance when needed to ensure accurate responses and avoid potential biases due to literacy or comprehension issues.

Ethical Issues

The study was approved by the bioethics committee of the religious religious community Santa Lucía (2018CE004) and by the management of the four centres. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, with informed consent obtained from all participants. They were assured of their right to withdraw from the study at any point without consequences.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations), multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for gender and residence, and calculations of correlations between variables and regression analyses were performed using SPSS 28.0.1.1. Spearman’s correlation coefficient (ρ) was used for correlations between age group, IUR and ownership (number of devices owned), and Pearson’s ^® coefficient for the other variables. Confirmatory factor analysis for technophilia was performed using JASP.

Results

Descriptive

A total of 334 participants (199 women, 135 men; mean age = 75.3 years, SD = 4.2) completed the study. Participants reported owning an average of 2.5 smart devices in their households. Full descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	Men (n = 135)	Women (n = 199)	Total (n = 334)
Age	75.1 (4.3)	75.5 (4.1)	75.3 (4.2)
Number of devices owned	2.8 (1.2)	2.3 (1.1)	2.5 (1.2)
Enthusiasm	34.2 (5.8)	32.1 (6.1)	33.1 (6.0)
Dependency	20.1 (4.5)	19.8 (4.7)	19.9 (4.6)
Reputation	10.2 (4.1)	9.7 (4.3)	9.9 (4.2)
Technophobia	24.5 (8.1)	23.8 (8.3)	24.1 (8.2)
Trust	22.9 (6.3)	23.5 (6.5)	23.2 (6.4)
Digital skills	87.1 (7.5)	86.5 (7.8)	86.8 (7.7)
Operational skills	23.8 (1.9)	23.5 (2.0)	23.6 (1.9)
Navigational skills	10.1 (2.8)	9.9 (2.9)	10.0 (2.9)
Social skills	22.5 (2.1)	22.3 (2.2)	22.4 (2.1)
Creative skills	16.5 (4.6)	15.9 (4.8)	16.2 (4.7)
Mobile skills	14.1 (1.2)	13.8 (1.3)	14.0 (1.2)
IUR	6.1 (0.9)	6.0 (1.0)	6.1 (1.0)

Multivariate Analysis

The results of the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed gender differences, with males owning more devices than females (F = 4.85, p = .029, η² = 0.035). Men also scored higher than women on enthusiasm (F = 5.78, p = .017, η² = 0.042), general competence (F = 3.92, p = .049, η² = 0.029) and creative skills (F = 10.30, p = .002, η² = 0.072). No significant cross-over effects were found for residence or gender.

Correlations

Age was negatively correlated with operational skills (OP; ρ = −0.273, p < .001), creative skills (CRE; ρ = −0.187, p = .003) and general digital skills (ρ = −0.244, p < .001). No significant correlations were found with confidence in technology. Device ownership was positively related to all three subscales of technophilia (enthusiasm: ρ = 0.341, p < .001; dependence: ρ = 0.430, p < .001; reputation: ρ = 0.275, p < .001), and negatively but weakly related to technophobia (ρ = −0.165, p = .012). Device ownership was also positively related to confidence (ρ = 0.209, p = .002), operational skills (ρ = 0.166, p = .012) and creative skills (ρ = 0.291, p < .001). Intention to use and recommendation (IUR) showed a weak correlation with operational skills (ρ = −.127, p = .048).

Regression Analysis

A regression model was fitted to the data with technophobia as the dependent variable. The stepwise procedure produced a significant model that explained 57% of the variance (adjusted R² = 0.565). As can be seen in Table 2, operational and mobile skills contributed negatively to technophobia. Enthusiasm for technophilia negatively predicted technophobia, whereas reputation for technophilia positively predicted technophobia. Culture, gender and age were not significant predictors of technophobia.

Table 2.

Regression Analysis with Technophobia as Dependent Variable.

Variable	Standardised beta coefficient	t
Operational skills	−0.280	−5.64
Reputation	0.343	7.89
Enthusiasm	−0.289	−6.57
Navigational skills	−0.191	−4.22
Mobile skills	−0.163	−3.35

Note. p-value was less than .001 in all cases.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore the role of technophobia, technophilia, digital literacy, and trust in technology in adults aged 70 and above who live independently and are cognitively healthy. Unlike previous studies focussing on younger or more diverse populations (N. Daruwala, 2024), this study addresses a vulnerable yet underexplored group, offering new insights into factors influencing technology adoption and their impact on autonomy and quality of life.

‘Digital Care’ as a Pathway to Promote Autonomy

To enable older adults to remain autonomous and independent, this study introduces the concept of ‘digital care’—an approach that not only teaches technology skills but also promotes positive attitudes and reduces technophobia. Technology is more than a tool for communication; it serves as a foundation for health monitoring, decision-making, and social engagement (Carenzio et al., 2021; Schlomann et al., 2020). Supporting older adults to embrace technology is essential to improve their well-being and prevent fragile ageing (Di Giacomo et al., 2020; Nimrod, 2021).

Device Ownership, Technophobia, and Trust

Our findings indicate that ownership of smart devices correlates positively with technophilia and trust in technology, and negatively with technophobia. Participants who owned more devices exhibited greater enthusiasm and confidence, while those with fewer devices were more resistant and anxious. These results align with previous studies showing that frequent exposure to technology reduces anxiety and fosters trust (Choi et al., 2022; Troisi et al., 2022).

This association highlights the importance of promoting hands-on familiarity with smart devices as a strategy to overcome technophobia. Such exposure can facilitate access to health-related technologies, including telehealth services and digital self-management tools, which are essential for improving older adults’ health outcomes (Lee et al., 2022; Oh et al., 2021).

Gender Differences and Digital Inequality

Consistent with previous research, this study found significant gender differences in device ownership, enthusiasm for technology, and creative digital skills, with men outperforming women (N. Daruwala, 2024; Oggero et al., 2020). These results reflect a persistent gendered digital divide among older adults. However, the absence of significant gender differences in technophobia suggests that technology anxiety may affect men and women similarly in later life (Freeman et al., 2020).

Addressing gender disparities requires tailored interventions to empower older women, focussing on building digital confidence and competence. Such efforts are crucial to ensuring equal opportunities for accessing health resources and maintaining independence (N. Daruwala, 2024; Souesme et al., 2025).

Digital Literacy as a Predictor of Technophobia

This study demonstrates that digital literacy—particularly operational and mobile skills—negatively correlates with technophobia. Participants with higher levels of digital competence reported lower technology anxiety, supporting previous findings on the importance of digital skills for technology adoption (Nimrod, 2021; Smrke et al., 2025).

Improving Digital Literacy Has Broader Implications for Older Adults' Health and Autonomy

Reduced technophobia enables greater use of telehealth services, improving access to healthcare and supporting the management of chronic conditions (Marchiori et al., 2019; Sun & Ye, 2024).

Enhanced digital skills can mitigate feelings of technostress, which is often linked to overload, complexity, and invasiveness (Marchiori et al., 2019; Nedeljko et al., 2024).

The Dual Role of Technophilia

Interestingly, while enthusiasm (a dimension of technophilia) was associated with lower technophobia, the reputation subscale predicted higher technophobia. This finding suggests that individuals who rely on technology to maintain social status may experience performance anxiety when using it. Balancing enthusiasm with practical and stress-free learning experiences is essential to avoid reinforcing psychological barriers.

Practical Implications

The findings have significant implications for practice and policy.

Tailored Digital Literacy Programmes: Healthcare professionals, particularly nurses and gerontological specialists, are well-positioned to design interventions that enhance digital competence and reduce technophobia among older adults (Schlomann et al., 2020).

Gender-Inclusive Strategies: Programmes specifically targeting women can help close the gendered digital divide and promote equal access to digital health tools.

Technology Design: Manufacturers should develop user-friendly, accessible smart devices that consider older adults’ cognitive and physical needs (Cannizzaro et al., 2020).

Policy Integration: Policymakers should incorporate digital care into ageing strategies, recognising its role in promoting health, autonomy, and social inclusion.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations. The sample consisted of older adults living in religious order homes in Italy, which may limit the generalisability of the findings. Future research should: Include more culturally and socio-economically diverse populations to improve external validity; Employ longitudinal designs to examine how digital literacy and technophobia evolve over time and their long-term effects on health and autonomy. The cross-sectional nature of the study prevents causal interpretations of the relationships between digital literacy, technophobia, and technology adoption. Future longitudinal studies are needed to explore these dynamics over time. Future research could incorporate qualitative methods to explore older adults’ lived experiences with technology, identifying specific psychological and contextual barriers that contribute to technophobia. Although the study emphasises autonomy and quality of life, future research should include direct measures of health outcomes, such as mental well-being, access to healthcare, and reduction in social isolation.

Conclusions

This study highlights the complex interplay between technophobia, technophilia, digital literacy, and trust in technology in adults aged 70 and older. The findings demonstrate that digital literacy, particularly operational and mobile skills, plays a crucial role in reducing technophobia, while device ownership and technophilia promote greater confidence and trust in technology. However, the observed gender differences emphasise persistent digital inequalities that need to be addressed. The introduction of digital care as a conceptual framework offers a pathway to promote digital inclusion, reduce psychological barriers, and foster healthier ageing through technology adoption. By enhancing digital skills and cultivating positive attitudes towards technology, healthcare professionals can empower older adults to integrate technology into their daily lives, thereby promoting autonomy, improving access to healthcare resources, and supporting successful ageing in an increasingly digitalised world.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the residents and staff of the four centres for their participation and support in this study. Special thanks to the bioethics committee of the religious order and the management of the centres for their approval and assistance.

ORCID iD

Gina Lladó-Jordan

Ethical Considerations

Ethics and Bioethics committee of the religious community Santa Lucía (2018CE004).

Consent to Participate

All participants provided informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. The surveys were conducted anonymously to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of the participants’ responses.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Author Contributions

All authors have contributed equally to the conception, design, data collection, analysis, and writing of this manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Permission to Reproduce Material from Other Sources

Permission to reproduce material from other sources was obtained where necessary. Proper acknowledgements have been made in the manuscript to credit the original sources.

References

Cannizzaro

Procter

Maple

(2020). Trust in the smart home: Findings from a nationally representative survey in the UK. PLoS One, 15(5), e0231615. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231615

Carenzio

Ferrari

Rasi

(2021). Older people’s media repertoires, digital competences and media literacies: A case study from Italy. Education Sciences, 11(10), 584.

Choi

N. G.

DiNitto

D. M.

Marti

C. N.

Choi

B. Y.

(2022). Telehealth use among older adults during COVID-19: Associations with sociodemographic and health characteristics, technology device ownership, and technology learning. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 41(3), 600–609.

Daruwala

(2024). A cross-cultural investigation on smart home technology: The roles of digital competence, technophobia, technophilia and trust. Aloma: Revista de Psicologia, Ciències de l'Educació i de l'Esport, 42(1), 9–24.

Di Giacomo

Guerra

Perilli

Ranieri

. (2020). Technophobia as emerging risk factor in aging: Investigation on computer anxiety dimension. Health Psychology Research, 8(1), 8207.

Freeman

Marston

H. R.

Olynick

Musselwhite

Kulczycki

Genoe

Xiong

(2020). Intergenerational effects on the impacts of technology use in later life: Insights from an international, multi-site study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5711.

Gracias

J. S.

Parnell

G. S.

Specking

Pohl

E. A.

Buchanan

(2023). Smart cities—a structured literature review. Smart Cities, 6(4), 1719–1743.

Khasawneh

O. Y.

(2018). Technophobia: Examining its hidden factors and defining it. Technology and Society, 54, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.03.008

Lee

Lim

J. A.

Nam

H. K.

(2022). Effect of a digital literacy program on older adults’ digital social behavior: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12404.

10.

Marchiori

D. M.

Mainardes

E. W.

Rodrigues

R. G.

(2019). Do individual characteristics influence the types of technostress reported by workers? International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(3), 218–230.

11.

Martínez-Córcoles

Teichmann

Murdvee

(2017). Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Technology and Society, 51, 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.007

12.

Nedeljko

Bostan

C. M.

(2024). The dual impact of technological tools on health and technostress among older workers: An integrative literature review. Cognition Technology & Work, 26(1), 47–61.

13.

Nimrod

(2018). Technostress: Measuring a new threat to well-being in later life. Aging & Mental Health, 22(8), 1086–1093.

14.

Nimrod

(2021). Not good days for technophobes: Older internet users during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Gerontology, 47(4), 160–171.

15.

Nimrod

(2022). Technostress in a hostile world: Older internet users before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aging & Mental Health, 26(3), 526–533.

16.

Nisafani

A. S.

Kiely

Mahony

(2020). Workers’ technostress: A review of its causes, strains, inhibitors, and impacts. Journal of Decision System, 29(sup1), 243–258.

17.

Oggero

Rossi

M. C.

Ughetto

(2020). Entrepreneurial spirits in women and men: The role of financial literacy and digital skills. Small Business Economics, 55, 313–327.

18.

S. S.

Kim

K. A.

Kim

Chu

S. H.

Choi

(2021). Correction: Measurement of digital literacy among older adults: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(6), e26145.

19.

Schlomann

Seifert

Zank

Woopen

Rietz

(2020). Use of information and communication technology (ICT) devices among the oldest-old: Loneliness, anomie, and autonomy. Innovation in Aging, 4(2), igz050.

20.

Seberini

Nour

M. M.

Tokovska

(2022). From digital divide to technostress during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review. Organizacija, 55(2), 98–111.

21.

Seberini

Tokovska

Marasová

(2022). Technophobia and technostress in older adult employees as a challenge for human resource management. In Kotlánová

Gajdová

(Eds.), Proceedings of International Scientific Conference “Economic and Societal Challenges of the European Economy” (p. 174). Silesian University in Opava, School of Business Administration in Karviná. ISBN 978-80-7510-527-1.

22.

Smrke

Špes

Mlakar

Musil

Plohl

(2025). Technophobia mediates the associations between age, education level, and readiness to adopt new (health) technology among aging adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 44, 497–507.

23.

Souesme

Halgand

Maintenant

(2025). A way to aging well: A qualitative study to identify psychological barriers and facilitators to the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) by older adults. Educational Gerontology, 51, 423–437.

24.

Sovacool

B. K.

Furszyfer Del Rio

D. D.

(2020). Smart home technologies in Europe: A critical review of concepts, benefits, risks and policies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 120, 109663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109663

25.

Sun

(2024). Older and fearing new technologies? The relationship between older adults’ technophobiaand subjective age. Aging & Mental Health, 28(4), 569–576.

26.

Troisi

Fenza

Grimaldi

Loia

(2022). Covid-19 sentiments in smart cities: The role of technology anxiety before and during the pandemic. Computers in Human Behavior, 126, 106986.

27.

Van Deursen

A. J. A. M.

Helsper

Eynon

. (2014). Measuring digital skills: From digital skills to tangible outcomes project report. University of Twente.

28.

Zhang

Ayalon

(2022). When less intergenerational closeness helps: The influence of intergenerational physical proximity and technology attributes on technophobia among older adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 131, 107234.

Digital Care for Older People: Digital Literacy,Technophobia and Technophilia

Abstract

Aim:

Methods:

Findings:

Conclusions:

Keywords

What this paper adds

Applications of study findings

Introduction

Methodology

Participants

Recruitment and Selection Procedure

Instruments

Data Collection Procedure

Ethical Issues

Data Analysis

Results

Descriptive

Multivariate Analysis

Correlations

Regression Analysis

Discussion

‘Digital Care’ as a Pathway to Promote Autonomy

Device Ownership, Technophobia, and Trust

Gender Differences and Digital Inequality

Digital Literacy as a Predictor of Technophobia

Improving Digital Literacy Has Broader Implications for Older Adults' Health and Autonomy

The Dual Role of Technophilia

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Informed Consent

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Permission to Reproduce Material from Other Sources

References