Back

Digital divide is amplifying cognitive disparities among the older population: a community-based cohort study in China

Li, Y.; Liu, C.; Sun, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, X.; Zhang, z.

2024-02-27 public and global health
10.1101/2024.02.24.24303323 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTo investigate the potential impact of the digital divide on individuals cognitive function and its association with the development and reversion of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MethodsThis cohort study used data from Beijing Aging Brain Rejuvenation (BABRI) study applying a multistage cluster sampling design in 2008-2020. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), mixed linear models, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to model the association of digital divide and multi-domain cognition. ResultsAmong the 10098 participants, nearly half of them (48.9%) failed to overcome the digital divide, resulting in the worse performance in processing speed (F=10.67, p<0.001). The causal model indicated that individuals physical and mental health joint educational and occupational prestige affected the resource they achieved ultimately caused the digital divide. Moreover, longitudinal data revealed that both the elderly who successfully crossed the digital divide during the tracking process and those who had already done so prior to tracking showed significantly slower rates of decline in processing speed (B=-1.98, p<0.05; B=-2.62, p<0.01) and general cognitive function (B=3.50, p<0.001; B=3.13, p<0.01). Additionally, overcoming the digital divide also exhibited a lower risk of developing into MCI (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.34-0.74; HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29-0.62) and a greater probability of reversion from MCI to normal cognition (HR, 6.00; 95% CI, 3.77-9.56; HR, 9.22; 95% CI, 5.63-15.11). ConclusionsOvercoming the digital divide was significantly associated with better performance and lower aging rate of cognitive function, as well as a lower risk of developing into MCI and a higher probability of reversion from MCI into NC.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.