How to Popularize Smartphones among Older Adults: A Narrative Review and a New Perspective with Self-Efficacy, Social Capital, and Individualized Instruction as Key Drivers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to sincerely thank the authors for their significant contribution to deepening our understanding of how to promote the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) among the elderly. This work is of great importance for several reasons. First, it addresses a crucial social issue: the isolation of older adults and the consequent decline in their quality of life. The article highlights how the use of ICT, particularly smartphones, can not only improve the social connectivity of older adults but also contribute to their psychological and physical well-being. The authors propose an innovative intervention model that combines individual teaching and peer learning, aiming to enhance the self-efficacy and social capital of the elderly. This approach is essential for creating a more inclusive society and improving the quality of life for a demographic that is often overlooked.

I suggest citing the following articles in your manuscript to enhance the theoretical and methodological context:

1. Diotaiuti, P., Valente, G., Corrado, S., & Mancone, S. (2023). Assessing Decentering Capacity in Athletes: A Moderated Mediation Model. International journal of environmental research and public health, 20(4), 3324. This study can be cited in the section discussing the importance of self-efficacy, particularly regarding decentering capacity and behavioral change management.

2. D'Oliveira, A., et al. (2022). Home Physical Exercise Protocol for Older Adults, Applied Remotely During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for Randomized and Controlled Trial. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 828495. This article is relevant for discussing remote technological interventions, especially in the section on technology adoption by older adults.

These citations could enrich the discussion and theoretical support of your study.

Strengths of the Article

1. Innovative Approach: The article proposes an intervention model based on peer-to-peer teaching, which has rarely been explored in the context of ICT adoption among the elderly. This approach has the potential to create a positive spiral of self-efficacy and social capital.

2. Social Relevance: The work addresses a growing social issue, given the global aging population and the need to integrate older adults into digital technologies to prevent social isolation.

3. Methodological Rigor: The proposal of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention adds scientific value to the work, ensuring that the results obtained are reliable and generalizable.

Detailed Analysis and Suggestions for Modification

I will now proceed with a detailed analysis of specific parts of the document, indicating precise lines and suggesting modifications where necessary.

Abstract (Lines 2-16)

Suggestion:

• Lines 5-7: The phrase "the one-size-fits-all method will not attract everyone's interest and the results will be limited" could be rephrased for greater clarity. I suggest: "A one-size-fits-all approach fails to engage all individuals adequately, leading to limited outcomes."

• Line 9: The phrase "method sufficiently effective in terms of cost and time" could be improved to: "a method that is effective in both cost and time."

Reasoning: These modifications make the statements more precise and enhance the readability of the text.

Introduction (Lines 18-32)

Suggestion:

• Line 22: In "may solve these problems," it would be appropriate to specify which problems are being referred to. I suggest: "may help mitigate social isolation and the related mental and physical health issues."

• Lines 31-32: The phrase "and propose new intervention studies" can be strengthened by adding detail about the type of intervention proposed: "and propose new intervention studies based on personalized approaches and peer learning strategies."

Reasoning: Adding specifics makes the narrative clearer and strengthens the argument.

Section "Factors that hinder or promote smartphone use among the elderly" (Lines 33-69)

Suggestion:

• Lines 59-60: The phrase "rather, previous studies have argued that the main factors that negatively affect ICT use are lack of self-efficacy and social capital" could be rephrased to: "previous studies have identified the lack of self-efficacy and social capital as the main obstacles to ICT use."

• Line 66: Consider adding concrete examples of "new hobbies" that older adults might discover through ICT, such as online courses or virtual communities of interest.

Reasoning: Making the sentence more direct and enriching the content with concrete examples can enhance the impact of the message.

Section "Healthy aging and ICT" (Lines 70-105)

Suggestion:

• Line 75: The phrase "ICT is potentially addictive" can be made more precise: "The use of ICT can lead to compulsive behaviors or addictions."

• Line 83: It might be helpful to specify what is meant by "forcing" the use of ICT, for example: "imposing the use of ICT without considering the actual needs and interests of older adults."

Reasoning: These changes clarify the content and prevent ambiguous interpretations.

Section "Review of previous intervention studies and future study perspectives" (Lines 106-195)

Suggestion:

• Lines 118-119: The phrase "and a uniform approach that ignores their autonomy and preferences would discourage them" could be rephrased to: "a uniform approach, that does not take individual autonomy and preferences into account, could discourage the adoption of technologies."

• Lines 145-146: The phrase "if researchers want to maximize the results of an intervention" could be made more impactful: "to maximize the effectiveness of the intervention."

Reasoning: These modifications make the text more impactful and direct.

Section "Discussion" (Lines 248-281)

Suggestion:

• Line 252: Consider clarifying what is meant by "limitations to effectiveness," specifying that it refers to the possibility of participants passively receiving the training.

• Lines 273-275: The phrase "NPO management is forced to sacrifice budgets for other projects" could be better explained: "NPOs are often forced to reduce funding for other projects to cover operational costs."

Reasoning: Making these statements clearer and more specific enhances the reader's understanding.

 

This detailed analysis highlights some areas of the article that could benefit from clarifications or modifications to improve the precision and overall impact of the text. The suggested changes aim to make the authors' ideas clearer and more accessible while ensuring that the article maintains its relevance and scientific rigor

I suggest citing the following articles in your manuscript to enhance the theoretical and methodological context:

1. Diotaiuti, P., Valente, G., Corrado, S., & Mancone, S. (2023). Assessing Decentering Capacity in Athletes: A Moderated Mediation Model. International journal of environmental research and public health, 20(4), 3324. This study can be cited in the section discussing the importance of self-efficacy, particularly regarding decentering capacity and behavioral change management.

2. D'Oliveira, A., et al. (2022). Home Physical Exercise Protocol for Older Adults, Applied Remotely During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for Randomized and Controlled Trial. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 828495. This article is relevant for discussing remote technological interventions, especially in the section on technology adoption by older adults.

These citations could enrich the discussion and theoretical support of your study.

Author Response

Comments 1: [Given that the article is a review, the title "How to popularize smartphones among older adults: A narrative review and new perspectives" does a reasonable job of describing the general topic. However, whether it does so with sufficient precision can depend on how well the title reflects the specific content and focus of the review. Strengths of the Title: Broad Topic Coverage: The title clearly indicates that the article will discuss strategies to increase smartphone adoption among older adults, which is the central theme of the review. Indicates It’s a Review: By mentioning "A narrative review," it informs the reader that the article will cover existing literature on this topic. Potential Areas for Improvement: Specificity: If the review article goes into specific factors like "self-efficacy," "social capital," or "individualized instruction" as key drivers for popularizing smartphones, including such terms in the title could make it more precise. New Perspectives: The title mentions "new perspectives," but if the article proposes specific novel strategies or frameworks, the title could hint at these more directly to attract the right audience. Conclusion: The title does describe the article's topic reasonably well, but it could be more precise if it reflected any specific factors or frameworks discussed in the review. If precision is critical, refining the title to include more specific keywords related to the content could be beneficial.]

Response 1[Thank you. I have added more specific information to the end of the title based on your comments. “How to popularize smartphones among older adults: A narrative review and a new perspective with self-efficacy, social capital., and individualized instruction as key drivers”]

 

Comments 2 [If you believe that the timeliness, breadth, and accuracy of the discussion are not adequately qualified, this suggests that the discussion may have some shortcomings in these areas. Here’s a breakdown of what this could mean: Timeliness: Potential Issues: The discussion might not sufficiently incorporate the most recent research or emerging trends related to the topic. If the article relies heavily on older studies without addressing the latest developments in the field of smartphone adoption among older adults, it could be seen as lacking in timeliness. Example: If there have been recent advancements in smartphone technology or new intervention strategies that were not considered in the article, the discussion might not reflect the current state of the field. Breadth: Potential Issues: The discussion might not cover the full scope of relevant factors influencing smartphone adoption among older adults. If the review only focuses on a narrow range of studies or omits important areas such as socio-economic factors, cultural differences, or varying levels of technological literacy, it might be criticized for lacking breadth. Example: If the article doesn’t consider the role of accessibility features in smartphones for older adults with disabilities, the breadth of the discussion might be insufficient. Accuracy: Potential Issues: The discussion might contain inaccuracies or misinterpretations of the research findings. If the conclusions drawn in the discussion are not fully supported by the data presented in the studies reviewed, this could be seen as a problem with accuracy. Example: If the article overstates the effectiveness of certain intervention methods without acknowledging their limitations or the mixed results found in the literature, it could be considered inaccurate. Conclusion: If the timeliness, breadth, and accuracy of the discussion are not adequately qualified, this suggests that the article may benefit from: Incorporating More Recent Research: To ensure the discussion is up-to-date. Expanding the Scope: To cover a wider range of relevant factors and studies. Ensuring Accurate Interpretation: To avoid overgeneralizations or misinterpretations of the data. A more detailed and balanced discussion that reflects the current state of research and considers a broader range of factors would strengthen the article. If you have specific concerns or examples from the text that highlight these issues, they could be addressed to improve the discussion's quality.]

Response 2 [The following sentence has been added to 30-32. ”In addition, recent technological advances are transforming ICT into accessible tools for older people with disabilities. For example, the use of smartphones is changing from traditional visual interfaces to interactions using alternative body senses such as touch and gestures [12].”

In addition, the following sentence has been added to 299-319: ”In addition, the analytical model proposed in this study has the potential for fur-ther improvement. To date, many studies have clarified the "benefits" of promoting the use of ICT such as smartphones among the elderly [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. In contrast to these studies, this study reviewed the "methods" of promoting the use of smartphones among the elderly [43,45,46] and proposed a new method of individualized instruction based on both self-efficacy and social capital. However, some of the studies that deal with "benefits" can be used as reference when considering the “methods” for dissemi-nation. For example, a recent review of RCTs found that multigenerational interactions using ICT tend to increase mutual understanding between people of different genera-tions [54]. In the long term, this increased mutual understanding could contribute to the spread of ICT by broadening the range of interests and concerns of the elderly. In addition, having younger generations teach ICT may promote the spread of ICT among the elderly in the short term as well. This is because some elderly people say that they are more likely to follow advice from their grandchildren’s generation than from their own or their children’s generation (according to the author's interviews with elderly people). Therefore, it may be worth considering modifications such as incorporating multigen-erational elements into the individual instruction proposed in this paper, which is based on both self-efficacy and social capital. For example, a method in which experi-enced instructors teach high school and university student volunteers, who then teach the el-derly, is attractive not only in terms of effectiveness but also in terms of cost and time, and is a strategy worth trying to promote the spread of ICT among the el-derly.”]

 

Comments 3 [appears to be satisfactory, but they might not be exceptional. Here are some key points regarding the figures: Figure Relevance: The figures used in the article seem relevant to the content. For example, one of the figures illustrates the possibility that social capital and self-efficacy promote ICT use among older adults​(psycholint-3183839-peer…). This aligns well with the article's focus on these concepts as critical factors in the adoption of smartphones by the elderly. Clarity and Effectiveness: While the figures appear to be relevant, the text does not provide detailed commentary on the quality or clarity of the figures. Therefore, it is difficult to assess their effectiveness in conveying the intended information without directly reviewing them. The figures should ideally be clear, well-labeled, and easy to understand to effectively support the narrative. Support for Key Points: The figures are used to support key points in the discussion, such as illustrating the flow of self-efficacy and social capital, which are central to the article’s arguments​(psycholint-3183839-peer…). This suggests that the figures are not just decorative but contribute to the reader’s understanding of the proposed concepts. Conclusion: The figures in the article seem to be satisfactory in terms of relevance and support for the article's key points. However, without direct visual analysis, it is not possible to definitively judge their clarity and overall quality. If there are concerns about the visual quality or the precision of the figures, those would need to be addressed by reviewing the images directly and ensuring they effectively communicate the information discussed in the text.]

Response 3 [The following sentence has been added to 253-259: ”First, the elderly start learning the technology they like ("study with interest"). This al-lows them to more quickly and easily realize that ICT is fun and useful ("experience the fun and practicality"). The more fun ICT is, the faster they can learn it ("fast learn-ing"). The elderly then teach other elderly people the ICT they have learned ("teach others"). The act of teaching others increases their confidence in their own abilities ("self-efficacy"). Higher confidence in their own abilities reduces their sense of dis-comfort with ICT and increases their motivation to learn other functions ("study with interest").”]

 

Comments 4 [I would like to sincerely thank the authors for their significant contribution to deepening our understanding of how to promote the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) among the elderly. This work is of great importance for several reasons. First, it addresses a crucial social issue: the isolation of older adults and the consequent decline in their quality of life. The article highlights how the use of ICT, particularly smartphones, can not only improve the social connectivity of older adults but also contribute to their psychological and physical well-being. The authors propose an innovative intervention model that combines individual teaching and peer learning, aiming to enhance the self-efficacy and social capital of the elderly. This approach is essential for creating a more inclusive society and improving the quality of life for a demographic that is often overlooked.

I suggest citing the following articles in your manuscript to enhance the theoretical and methodological context:

Diotaiuti, P., Valente, G., Corrado, S., & Mancone, S. (2023). Assessing Decentering Capacity in Athletes: A Moderated Mediation Model. International journal of environmental research and public health, 20(4), 3324. This study can be cited in the section discussing the importance of self-efficacy, particularly regarding decentering capacity and behavioral change management.

D'Oliveira, A., et al. (2022). Home Physical Exercise Protocol for Older Adults, Applied Remotely During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for Randomized and Controlled Trial. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 828495. This article is relevant for discussing remote technological interventions, especially in the section on technology adoption by older adults.

These citations could enrich the discussion and theoretical support of your study.

Strengths of the Article

Innovative Approach: The article proposes an intervention model based on peer-to-peer teaching, which has rarely been explored in the context of ICT adoption among the elderly. This approach has the potential to create a positive spiral of self-efficacy and social capital.

Social Relevance: The work addresses a growing social issue, given the global aging population and the need to integrate older adults into digital technologies to prevent social isolation.

Methodological Rigor: The proposal of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention adds scientific value to the work, ensuring that the results obtained are reliable and generalizable.

Detailed Analysis and Suggestions for Modification

I will now proceed with a detailed analysis of specific parts of the document, indicating precise lines and suggesting modifications where necessary.

Abstract (Lines 2-16)

Suggestion:

Lines 5-7: The phrase "the one-size-fits-all method will not attract everyone's interest and the results will be limited" could be rephrased for greater clarity. I suggest: "A one-size-fits-all approach fails to engage all individuals adequately, leading to limited outcomes."

Line 9: The phrase "method sufficiently effective in terms of cost and time" could be improved to: "a method that is effective in both cost and time."

Reasoning: These modifications make the statements more precise and enhance the readability of the text.

Introduction (Lines 18-32)

Suggestion:

Line 22: In "may solve these problems," it would be appropriate to specify which problems are being referred to. I suggest: "may help mitigate social isolation and the related mental and physical health issues."

Lines 31-32: The phrase "and propose new intervention studies" can be strengthened by adding detail about the type of intervention proposed: "and propose new intervention studies based on personalized approaches and peer learning strategies."

Reasoning: Adding specifics makes the narrative clearer and strengthens the argument.

Section "Factors that hinder or promote smartphone use among the elderly" (Lines 33-69)

Suggestion:

Lines 59-60: The phrase "rather, previous studies have argued that the main factors that negatively affect ICT use are lack of self-efficacy and social capital" could be rephrased to: "previous studies have identified the lack of self-efficacy and social capital as the main obstacles to ICT use."

Line 66: Consider adding concrete examples of "new hobbies" that older adults might discover through ICT, such as online courses or virtual communities of interest.

Reasoning: Making the sentence more direct and enriching the content with concrete examples can enhance the impact of the message.

Section "Healthy aging and ICT" (Lines 70-105)

Suggestion:

Line 75: The phrase "ICT is potentially addictive" can be made more precise: "The use of ICT can lead to compulsive behaviors or addictions."

Line 83: It might be helpful to specify what is meant by "forcing" the use of ICT, for example: "imposing the use of ICT without considering the actual needs and interests of older adults."

Reasoning: These changes clarify the content and prevent ambiguous interpretations.

Section "Review of previous intervention studies and future study perspectives" (Lines 106-195)

Suggestion:

Lines 118-119: The phrase "and a uniform approach that ignores their autonomy and preferences would discourage them" could be rephrased to: "a uniform approach, that does not take individual autonomy and preferences into account, could discourage the adoption of technologies."

Lines 145-146: The phrase "if researchers want to maximize the results of an intervention" could be made more impactful: "to maximize the effectiveness of the intervention."

Reasoning: These modifications make the text more impactful and direct.

Section "Discussion" (Lines 248-281)

Suggestion:

Line 252: Consider clarifying what is meant by "limitations to effectiveness," specifying that it refers to the possibility of participants passively receiving the training.

Lines 273-275: The phrase "NPO management is forced to sacrifice budgets for other projects" could be better explained: "NPOs are often forced to reduce funding for other projects to cover operational costs."

Reasoning: Making these statements clearer and more specific enhances the reader's understanding.

This detailed analysis highlights some areas of the article that could benefit from clarifications or modifications to improve the precision and overall impact of the text. The suggested changes aim to make the authors' ideas clearer and more accessible while ensuring that the article maintains its relevance and scientific rigor]

Response 4 [Thank you for your detailed comments. I have made all the changes you suggested. I have also made a minor change. 214-215 ”and within-group changes using post-hoc t-tests”]

 

Comments 5 [I suggest citing the following articles in your manuscript to enhance the theoretical and methodological context:

Diotaiuti, P., Valente, G., Corrado, S., & Mancone, S. (2023). Assessing Decentering Capacity in Athletes: A Moderated Mediation Model. International journal of environmental research and public health, 20(4), 3324. This study can be cited in the section discussing the importance of self-efficacy, particularly regarding decentering capacity and behavioral change management.

D'Oliveira, A., et al. (2022). Home Physical Exercise Protocol for Older Adults, Applied Remotely During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for Randomized and Controlled Trial. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 828495. This article is relevant for discussing remote technological interventions, especially in the section on technology adoption by older adults.

These citations could enrich the discussion and theoretical support of your study.]

Response 5 [I added them. #48 and #39. Thank you very much for your useful suggestions.]

Reviewer 2 Report

 

This is a very interesting paper about how to popularize smartphones among older adults. Idea is to study the ways of teaching of older adults between uniform education and individualized instruction which appears as more effective in helping elderly people acquire new skills.

The paper is appropriately structured and well documented with 50 references.

The presentation of different approaches studied is appropriately deep. A new approach is proposed, in which individually educated older adults can participate to individual instruction of other older adults and in this way decries the education cost.

A synthesizing table is proposed comparing three previous methods with proposed research to organize in the future.

Concerning this proposal of future research, it is surprising to be able to anticipate and fix future results:

“The study will be a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Assuming that two measurements will be taken in total for the intervention and control groups, the effect size (partial eta squared value) will be a moderate 0.06, and the significance level will be 5% with a power of 80%. The sample size required to test interactions using repeated measures ANOVA will be calculated as 68 people (34 people in each group) using G*Power 3.1.9.7. Considering the possibility of dropouts, 80 people (40 people in each group) will be planned as study subjects.”

 More globally, I ask me if it is not too early to publish this work. I personally suggest to wait and publish this study after its accomplishment with obtained results.

Concerning this proposal of future research, it is surprising to be able to anticipate and fix future results:

lines 196-206:

“The study will be a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Assuming that two measurements will be taken in total for the intervention and control groups, the effect size (partial eta squared value) will be a moderate 0.06, and the significance level will be 5% with a power of 80%. The sample size required to test interactions using repeated measures ANOVA will be calculated as 68 people (34 people in each group) using G*Power 3.1.9.7. Considering the possibility of dropouts, 80 people (40 people in each group) will be planned as study subjects.”

 

Author Response

Thank you for your encouraging comment.

I plan to work on the future research proposals described in this paper myself. As you pointed out, I previously considered publishing the results once they were available, but I decided to make them public in the hope that they will be useful to other researchers. If another researcher gets there first, I plan to add further conditions to my plan. It is my hope that research will progress little by little through the efforts of researchers around the world.

I have also made a minor change. 214-215 ”and within-group changes using post-hoc t-tests”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After thoroughly reviewing the revisions made to the manuscript, I am pleased to inform you that, in my opinion, the article is now ready for publication. The changes have improved the clarity and overall structure of the text, making the content more accessible to readers and strengthening the central arguments presented.

In particular, I appreciate how the revisions have addressed previous concerns regarding the methodology and the logic behind the proposed study. The context in which information and communication technology (ICT) can benefit older adults has been clarified, with a specific focus on the importance of self-efficacy and social capital in learning smartphone functions. This personalized approach, which takes individual differences into account, has been described more thoroughly and convincingly, with a stronger link to the existing literature.

Moreover, the deeper exploration of the practical implementation of the proposed solutions, particularly the idea of turning older adults into teachers for their peers, not only offers an innovative way to overcome time and cost limitations but also highlights the psychological and social benefits that can arise from peer teaching. This approach could serve as a practical and sustainable model for promoting digital inclusion among the elderly.

The improvements to the study design, including the explanation of the randomization methodology and the measures used to evaluate outcomes, have also enhanced the scientific robustness of the proposal, making the manuscript suitable for publication and of great interest to the scientific community.

I believe that the article now represents a significant contribution to the existing literature on digital inclusion for older adults and provides valuable guidelines for future studies and practical interventions.

Therefore, I strongly recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication.

After thoroughly reviewing the revisions made to the manuscript, I am pleased to inform you that, in my opinion, the article is now ready for publication. The changes have improved the clarity and overall structure of the text, making the content more accessible to readers and strengthening the central arguments presented.

In particular, I appreciate how the revisions have addressed previous concerns regarding the methodology and the logic behind the proposed study. The context in which information and communication technology (ICT) can benefit older adults has been clarified, with a specific focus on the importance of self-efficacy and social capital in learning smartphone functions. This personalized approach, which takes individual differences into account, has been described more thoroughly and convincingly, with a stronger link to the existing literature.

Moreover, the deeper exploration of the practical implementation of the proposed solutions, particularly the idea of turning older adults into teachers for their peers, not only offers an innovative way to overcome time and cost limitations but also highlights the psychological and social benefits that can arise from peer teaching. This approach could serve as a practical and sustainable model for promoting digital inclusion among the elderly.

The improvements to the study design, including the explanation of the randomization methodology and the measures used to evaluate outcomes, have also enhanced the scientific robustness of the proposal, making the manuscript suitable for publication and of great interest to the scientific community.

I believe that the article now represents a significant contribution to the existing literature on digital inclusion for older adults and provides valuable guidelines for future studies and practical interventions.

Therefore, I strongly recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication.