Later-life events, such as retirement, relocation, and death or illness among friends and family, impact both the quantity and quality of older adults’ social interactions, increasing risk of social isolation and loneliness (Ashida and Heaney, 2008). Research highlights that older adults experience a higher risk of loneliness and social isolation, as compared to other demographics (O’Rourke and Sidani, 2017; O’Rourke et al., 2018). Loneliness–the subjective feeling of lacking social resources and connections to turn to for support, companionship, and sense of security–is a consequence of social isolation (Victor et al., 2001, 2002). Evidence exists in the literature, for the serious health consequences of both loneliness (Patterson and Veenstra, 2010; Luo et al., 2012; Chopik, 2016), and social isolation (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; Steptoe et al., 2013; Saito et al., 2020). Among those health hazards, are increased depressive symptoms (Chopik, 2016; Santini et al., 2020), accelerated cognitive decline (Donovan et al., 2017; Griffin et al., 2020) and reduced physical activity (Schrempft et al., 2019).

The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), which contains data from a sample of Canadians aged 45–85, indicates the prevalence of loneliness (10.2%) and social isolation (5.1%) within this population (Latham-Mintus et al., 2019). Victor’s (2012) review of the prevalence of loneliness illustrates that the severity of loneliness (as measured by quantitative scores) in long term care homes is at least twice that of community-dwelling populations: 22–42% for the long-term care home population compared to 10% for the community population (Victor, 2012). A review article of 38 studies suggests that being female, non-married, older, having a poor income, a lower educational level, living alone, a low quality of social relationships, poor self-reported health, and functioning are all associated with loneliness in older adults (Cohen-Mansfield et al., 2015). There is literature that points to the need for nuance in determining how loneliness, social isolation and age are inter-related. Age is not the only cause. Data from the Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey demonstrates age is not significantly associated with loneliness when personal and social engagement characteristics are accounted for de Jong Gierveld et al. (2015).

How might we, as a society, mitigate or pre-empt the myriad of problems that are associated with loneliness and social isolation? Research indicates that increasing social engagement may be one way to instigate wellbeing and improve quality of life (Erickson and Johnson, 2011; Myhre et al., 2017). A data-driven meta-analysis by Holt-Lunstad et al. (2010) that examined 148 studies following more than 300,000 individuals over a period of 7.5 years, indicates that an individuals’ experience of social support is a significant moderator of mortality rates (increasing odds ratio by 50%), suggesting that social integration is an important predictor of survival in health interventions (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). A 2015 survey in the US, which recorded changes in older adults’ confidant (close contact) networks over a period of about 5 years, documents that more than 80% of participants surveyed cultivated new confidant relationships and that the growth of these confidant networks can be associated with improvements in their self-reported psychological and functional health (Cornwell and Laumann, 2015). Greater social networks with friends (in terms of size and frequency of contact) protect against depression in older adults (Singh et al., 2016), and are associated with improved wellbeing (Chen and Feeley, 2013). Additionally, individuals with higher quality social relationships defined by high level of social supports and low social strain experienced from a spouse/partner, other family members, children, or friends, seem more motivated to engage in leisure activities and reap more health benefits than those with fewer or less meaningful social relationships (Chang et al., 2014).

According to Pew Research Center (2017), the use of ICT among those 65 and above has grown considerably in the past decade (Faverio, 2022). Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic presented us with the reality that ICTs are a necessity rather than a luxury for living in digitally driven, networked societies. More than a decade ago, a meta-analysis of Internet use among older adults reported a positive association with mental health and psychosocial covariates, specifically enhanced interpersonal relationships, greater access to community resources and social inclusion (Erickson and Johnson, 2011). Various other association studies since have indicated that internet use is positively associated with active decision-making with respect to one’s health and finances, increased self-confidence, self-efficacy, and quality of life (James et al., 2013; Heo et al., 2015; Cajita et al., 2016; Khalaila and Vitman-Schorr, 2018; Silva et al., 2018). Yet, in terms of the influence of Internet use on loneliness and social isolation, the results are inconsistent.

A scoping review by Fakoya et al. (2020) identified 33 review articles describing loneliness and social isolation interventions for older adults. They reported inconsistency arising from how interventions are categorized and defined. They identified six types of ICT interventions which involved administering use or training users to interact with or learn how to use an ICT device. For example, telephone befriending, pet companions, computer and internet training, and smart technology were different types of ICTs proposed to try and improve communication and social connectedness.

The adoption of ICTs by older adults is not without its challenges. Researchers have demonstrated that a host of socioeconomic, cultural, geographical, and personal factors must be accounted for in studying older adults’ relationships with technology (Hong and Cho, 2017; Siren and Knudsen, 2017; Arcury et al., 2020; Yoon et al., 2020). Older adults often are selective in their technology use, however, social relations are important drivers for ICT use in this population (Newman et al., 2021). The use of at least one social media site among older adult Americans 65 years and older has increased from 3% in 2005 to 45% in 2021 (Pew Research Centre, 2021). Access to modern ICTs with improved and simplified user experience is steadily growing. A study of 940 residents living in 20 retirement homes in Switzerland, indicated that 21% of residents have reported using the internet, 13% have used a smartphone, and 5% have used a tablet (Seifert and Cotten, 2020). In a review of 34 studies exploring ICT use among older adults, (Khosravi et al., 2016) found that older adults interacted with at least eight types of ICTs to maintain social connections (email, video games, personal reminder information and social management systems, asynchronous peer support chat rooms, social network sites, Telecare, and 3D virtual environments). However, a similar systematic review noted that only 1 out of 25 ICT interventions effectively reduced social isolation (Ibarra et al., 2020). A qualitative study of Technologies in Later Life (TILL) in 37 rural communities indicates that older adults may welcome the introduction of ICTs to their lives by their children, and deem them useful for creating connections, while at the same time acknowledging that the adoption of ICTS do not fully correspond to their actual needs or interests (Freeman et al., 2020). Issues surrounding older adults’ adherence and acceptance of ICTs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been documented by Khalili-Mahani and Sawchuk (2022). Furthermore, there remains inconsistency as to whether ICTs are efficacious in reducing loneliness and increasing social connectedness as measured with RCTs. While older adults remain at a heightened risk of loneliness and social isolation, they also demonstrate increased ICT adoption. Given the importance placed on ICTs for staying socially connected, to what extent are ICTs associated with loneliness and social connectedness in older adults? To answer this question and uncover other factors contributing to these associations we conducted a scoping review of the literature. While more recent research has focused on ICT use and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic (Llorente-Barroso et al., 2021; Veiga-Seijo et al., 2021; Dhakal et al., 2022) this scoping review maps the research evidence on the associations between ICT use and loneliness and social connectedness pre-pandemic. Importantly, this review serves as a point of comparison and emphasizes the importance of in-person social contact when examining these associations, a construct that would have been omitted in the pandemic literature.

The following research questions were developed.

The goal of our scoping review is to examine the following questions:

This study was conceived in the early days of the social distancing laws coming to effect in Canada (March 2020), to protect against COVID-19 contagion. We aimed to examine the existing empirical evidence to date, to guide upcoming programming and research projects that aimed to mitigate the risks of loneliness and social isolation created by the social distancing laws. In July 2020 we performed a comprehensive literature search using the electronic databases PubMed, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cochrane, SPORTDiscus, Academic Search Complete, and SocINDEX. The search focused on three variables: older adults, Information and Communication Technology and loneliness. The search terms were as follows: (older adults OR elderly OR seniors) AND (ICT OR digital media OR digital technology OR digital games) AND (recreation OR leisure OR social inclusion OR loneliness OR Social connectedness). Given the distinct changes in digital socialization and communication habits emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic, we have refrained to include data emerging in the past 2 years in this scoping review. The aim of the current review is thus to serve as a baseline against which emerging evidence can be compared.

The database searches yielded 8,294 records (see Figure 1). The titles were reviewed by two of the authors (BP, CM) to determine eligibility. In the case of a disagreement, a third author intervened. Titles needed to include any terms relating to older adults, a form of ICT and/or a social outcome measure. Titles were excluded if they focused on any forms of health-related problems as it is beyond the scope of this review, or if the article was part of gray literature. This reduced the number of titles to 236. We then reviewed the bibliographies of these 236 articles and included an additional 147 titles meeting the criteria from these bibliographies (total N = 383).

The abstracts were then screened by the same two authors using the following inclusion criteria:

Exclusion criteria included:

Applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria yielded 83 abstracts. To further determine if the abstracts fully met inclusion/exclusion criteria the full text articles were read with a final 54 meeting the applicable criteria and were included in the scoping review (Figure 1).

Articles that met the selection criteria were reviewed to extract the following information into an excel spreadsheet: year of publication, geographic location, research methodology (survey, intervention, meta-analysis, qualitative research, registered clinical trials, cohort studies, and case series), sample size, sample characteristics (age, gender, social, or medical specifics), type of ICT device. See Table 1 for some characteristics of the studies.

Once the data were charted, we then applied our research questions to the data. Specifically, we examined the types of interventions (e.g., what device or procedure), study and participant characteristics (study setting, demographics) and the reported impact or associations with loneliness (qualitative, quantitative, and inconsistencies) and social connectedness to create a narrative summary of the study objectives and findings. This allowed us to determine the relation among ICTs and older adults’ wellbeing.

Findings from the scoping review allowed us to examine the specific ICT devices that were associated with reductions in loneliness and depression along with improvements in wellbeing. Interventions involving video conferencing (Tsai et al., 2010; Tsai and Tsai, 2011), web-based computer training (i.e., internet and social-networking websites) (Shapira et al., 2007; White et al., 2010, 2016; Blažun et al., 2012; Cotten et al., 2013) and two prototypes (Ballantyne et al., 2010; Czaja et al., 2018) were associated with decreased loneliness. Video conferencing provided older nursing home residents with emotional and appraisal social support (i.e., information that is useful for self-evaluation), and users experienced reduced depressive symptoms at three (Tsai et al., 2010; Tsai and Tsai, 2011) six and 12 months (Tsai and Tsai, 2011). Similarly, users of video chat had approximately half the probability of developing depressive symptoms, compared to non-users or those who used only email (Teo et al., 2019). Since video chat provides the richest media for mimicking in-person contact, it has a fundamental benefit for increasing social and emotional connectedness, in turn reducing feelings of loneliness (Tsai and Tsai, 2011; Teo et al., 2019; Ibarra et al., 2020). Such findings highlight the importance of creating ICT opportunities that are more like interpersonal exchanges to improve older adults’ wellbeing.

A quasi-experimental study noted older adults in their computer training course demonstrated decreased depression as compared to controls (Shapira et al., 2007). Cross-sectional and longitudinal survey results indicate ICT was associated with lower depression (Teo et al., 2019; Quittschalle et al., 2020). RCT designs have provided mixed findings on the effects of ICT training on loneliness and depression. An RCT prototype intervention completed individually by participants and provided easy access to resources and information sources and opportunities for engagement and communication (i.e., PRISM) was negatively correlated with depression scores (Mitzner et al., 2019). After conducting this RCT with 300 older adults, the group using PRISM, demonstrated greater perceived social support, and decreased loneliness at 6 months, but group differences disappeared at 12 months (Czaja et al., 2018). Another 12-month prototype intervention completed individually showed increases in wellbeing, but not in depression or activities of daily living (Ballesteros et al., 2014). RCTs involving computer training (e.g., learning computer basics) provide inconsistent findings. For example, 2 weeks of group computer training resulted in a trend toward decreased depression (White et al., 2010). Another 6-month group computer training intervention found greater self-efficacy and quality of life among the computer training group as compared to control but no differences in loneliness or depression (Woodward et al., 2010). A 3-month computer training study found weekly computer training with a nurse or significant other improved self-esteem compared to the control group who received only weekly nurse visits but no computer training. Additionally, those who trained with the nurse also demonstrated reduced depression (Billipp, 2001). Findings from RCTs highlight that the effectiveness of ICT interventions may be more closely related to who is conducting the training, rather than the training duration. Group versus individual based training formats are likely to affect training efficacy (Ibarra et al., 2020; Balki et al., 2022). These factors are discussed in more depth in Section 4.3.1.

Using web-based ICTs and using them frequently was associated with greater wellbeing compared to non-web-based ICTs or not using them at all. In a large-scale qualitative study of more than 1,600 older adults in Germany, individuals using web-based ICTs reported lower levels of loneliness compared to users of non-web ICT (e.g., TV) and non-users (Pak et al., 2020). Similarly, internet users expressed having greater and more social support networks than non-users, and users reported better self-rated health-related quality of life, fewer depressive symptoms, fewer chronic medical conditions and less feelings of loneliness (Quittschalle et al., 2020). Regular internet use was also associated with a lower chance of being socially isolated among older adults aged 65 and over even after controlling for personal characteristics such as income, marital status, gender, and health conditions (Lelkes, 2013). However, in another study, a higher frequency of online engagement was associated with lower levels of loneliness but not with lower levels of perceived social isolation among older adults in assisted and independent living communities. This finding suggests that in person contact rather than online contact may impact perceptions of social isolation (or social inclusion) (Cotten et al., 2013). Social networking websites seem to be related to temporary feelings of loneliness (i.e., loneliness which is experienced at a particular time of day or time of life) because of the flexibility of online communication, which can be used at any time of the day (Ballantyne et al., 2010; Nimrod, 2012). Facebook users were found to score higher on social satisfaction and confidence with technology as compared to non-users, but no differences in feelings of loneliness existed (Bell et al., 2013). Similarly, the greater the use of social media, the better the perception of social support, which increases participants’ quality-of-life (Nam, 2019). Among socially isolated older adults, ICTs that involved a closed social networking tool, such as posting photographs and messages on shared display for friends helped to facilitate social engagement and enhanced relationships between older adults and care managers (Waycott et al., 2015).

The benefits of ICTs seem to be tied to strengthening pre-existing and new social connections and, promoting leisure and the fostering of intergenerational connections.

A series of factors positively contribute to the association between ICT use and older adults’ wellbeing, which include ICT training, ownership and design/features. These factors have the ability to improve social connections, autonomy and self-efficacy, and reduce loneliness, among other aspects of quality of life.

A common challenge in reviewing the literature on the association between ICT interventions, loneliness and social connectedness was the heterogeneity of methodologies, statistical reporting (i.e., effect sizes), range in sample sizes across studies, and the diversity in ICT devices. For example, this review includes RCTs, cross sectional designs, quasi experiments, case series and cohort studies. Sample sizes ranged from 1 to 11,000 and there were seven different ICT categories (i.e., digital games, iPad, prototypes, computer, video, social media, and smartphone). Within each category there was heterogeneity in the features of the devices and interventions A lack of methodological consistency contributes to result inconsistency.

The diversity in this data set prohibited us from making conclusive assertions about what factors explain or obscure the association between ICTs, loneliness, and social connectedness. For instance, potential benefits from group ICT training may be to a larger extent related to the support provided by facilitators or family members than the intervention itself (Billipp, 2001). Or, novelty may have played a part in improving wellbeing, by providing new opportunities to enhance leisure, communication, and social connectedness during the experiment, but it is not clear whether such effects would remain.

Given the literature searches were performed in 2020, we did not include articles published during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, our review provides a first step in mapping the ways in which ICTs are related to loneliness and social connectedness not affected by the pandemic. This is important as ICT use/intervention studies during the pandemic would have removed features of in-person social contact, which as demonstrated in our review, can affect the association among ICT use, loneliness, and social connectedness. Future researchers may find this article useful when comparing ICT interventions pre, during and post pandemic. Final limitations of our review are that it is specific to healthy older adults and excludes those with impairments or serious health conditions. Such conditions are prevalent with aging. Therefore, future reviews should strive to include them in their research. Additionally, we did not account for possible publication biases.

Prior to this review it was unknown to what extent ICTs were associated with loneliness and social connectedness. The objective was to identify the dominant themes and findings in the literature surrounding this topic and to try and uncover what other factors may be contributing to these associations. We have provided readers with a way to map out ways in which these associations may or may not exist. For example, we conclude that the majority of studies surveyed demonstrate that ICT use among older adults is associated with reduced loneliness by supplementing existing social connections, by allowing for reconnection and formation of new relationships. ICTs that provide opportunities for leisure and learning are found to be enjoyable and foster intergenerational connections, which in turn has positive effects on psychosocial wellbeing. Learning and/or training to use ICTs has a positive relation to self-efficacy, self-esteem and autonomy, and independence. As such, our findings highlight the necessity of addressing the heterogeneity of older adults’ and their ICT preferences, motives, capabilities and concerns, and most importantly pre-existing social connections, to address the intertwined complexities among ICTs, loneliness, and wellbeing.

A strength of this scoping review is that it utilizes research from a range of multidisciplinary databases within the fields of Psychology, Sociology and Medicine. This extensive literature search provides an overview of the scholarly work in this field (more than 8,000 articles satisfying the initial search) and the limited number of empirical studies that satisfied our inclusion criteria (only 54 articles). The literature covered within this review encompasses both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. It is clear that a mixed methods approach provides a deep and nuanced perspective on the multiplicity of factors at play in the study of how older adults engage with ICTs and how given interventions improve wellbeing. At the same time, our review reveals the necessity of considering the context of ICT use, and the overall adoption of ICTs over the life course. Operational complexity of accounting for these variations in controlled trials underlines the difficulty of solely quantitative methodologies in establishing the health benefits of ICT interventions. Such a perspective goes beyond measuring the variations that arise from the biological factors associated with aging, as it takes seriously the psychological, social and cultural conditions that modulate the experiences of older adults in their homes or even the laboratories where some of these empirical experiments have taken place. Paying attention to these variations is a reminder of the range of motivations for the use of ICTs by older adults, as well acknowledging their preferences and their agency. Additionally, this review does not appraise the quality of evidence in terms of which ICT devices or interventions effectively reduce loneliness and improve wellbeing. As such, a systematic review focusing on this causal relation would be of great benefit to this field of research and those designing ICTs, but a greater number of RCTs is needed to perform this review. This review can help inform future researchers to consider the importance of implementing aspects of social connection, training format, leisure, easy to use design features and affordances into their ICT designs or interventions as a way to improve wellbeing. We have provided a starting point for future mediation and moderation analyses given we have identified several contributing factors to ICT and social construct associations.