CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Technology Use by Older AdultsHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Leveraging digital technology for social connectedness among adults with chronic conditions: A systematic review

Open access
Wright, Pamela J, Raynor, Phyllis A, Bowers, Dana, Combs, Elizabeth M, Corbett, Cynthia F, Hardy, Hannah, Patel, Khushi·2023·DIGITAL HEALTH
DOI 10.1177/20552076231204746PMC PMC10548813
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose To review the evidence about the impact of digital technology on social connectedness among adults with one or more chronic health conditions. Methods PubMed, Embase, Social Sciences, CINAHL, and Compendex were systematically searched for full-text, peer-reviewed empirical evidence published between 2012 and 2023 and reported using the PRISMA flow diagram. Articles were critically appraised applying the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Specific data were extracted based on the framework for social identity and technology approaches for health outcomes and then analyzed and synthesized. Results Thirty-four studies met study criteria. Evidence showed heterogeneity among research methodology, chronic health conditions, digital technology, and health outcomes. Technology use was influenced by factors such as usability, anonymity, availability, and control. More advanced digital technologies require higher digital literacy and improved accessibility features/modifications. Social support was the most measured aspect of social connectedness. The emotional and informational forms of social support were most reported; instrumental support was the least likely to be delivered. Self-efficacy for using technology was considered in seven articles. Sixteen articles reported health outcomes: 31.2% ( n = 5) described mental health outcomes only, 18.8% ( n = 3) reported physical health outcomes only, 31.2% ( n = 5) detailed both physical and mental health outcomes, whereas 18.8% ( n = 3) denoted well-being or quality-of-life outcomes. Most often, health outcomes were positive, with negative outcomes for selected groups also noted. Conclusion Leveraging digital technology to promote social connectedness has the potential to affect positive health outcomes. Further research is needed to better understand the social integration of technology among populations with different contexts and chronic health conditions to enhance and tailor digital interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/20552076231204746

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Engagement diminished over time as women with PCOS sought more common ground than the illness experience, such as life stage and overall health goal.

    “Similar to findings from a systematic review about social connectedness among individuals with chronic health conditions [66], engagement diminished over time as women with PCOS sought more common ground than the illness experience, such as life stage (eg, student, mother, and retiree) and, therefore, overall health goal (eg, fertility vs risk reduction of comorbidities) [1423263140].”

    From Availability and Use of Digital Technology Among Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [66]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. [1]Lee HY Kim J Sharratt M. Technology use and its association with health and depressive symptoms in older cancer survivors. Qual Life Res 2018; 27: 467– 477. 29128998
  2. [2]Neves BB Franz R Judges R, et al. Can digital technology enhance social connectedness among older adults? A feasibility study. J Appl Gerontol 2019; 38: 49– 72. 29166818
  3. [3]Rico-Uribe LA Caballero FF Martín-María N, et al. Association of loneliness with all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0190033. PMC5754055 29300743
  4. [5]Baskaran V Chubb LA Fouché CB. In sight, in mind: a literature synthesis on social connectedness through technology for young people with long-term conditions. Int J Incl Educ 2022. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2022.2095044 · DOI
  5. [6]Berkanish P Pan S Viola A, et al. Technology-based peer support interventions for adolescents with chronic illness: a systematic review. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2022; 29: 911– 942. 35147830 PMC8853345
  6. [8]Helgeson VS Zajdel M. Adjusting to chronic health conditions. Ann Rev Psychol 2017; 68: 545– 571. 28051935
  7. [9]Thompson DM Booth L Moore D, et al. Peer support for people with chronic conditions: a systematic review of reviews. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22: 427. 35361215 PMC8973527
  8. [12]Sen K Prybutok G Prybutok V. The use of digital technology for social wellbeing reduces social isolation in older adults: a systematic review. SSM Popul Health 2021; 30: 101020. PMC8733322 35024424
  9. [13]Alhusseini N Banta JE Oh J, et al. Social media use for health purposes by chronic disease patients in the United States. Saudi J Med Sci 2021; 9: 51– 58. PMC7839572 33519344
  10. [14]Utz D. Social network sites as vehicles for effective/ineffective social support. In: Egbert N Wright KB (eds) Social support and health in the digital age. New York: Littlefield Publishing Group, 2020, pp. 5– 27.
  11. [15]Evans SK Pearce KE Vitak J, et al. Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. J Comput-Mediat Commun 2017; 22: 35– 52.
  12. [16]Rains SA Peterson EB Wright KB. Communicating social support in computer-mediated contexts: a meta-analytic review of content analyses examining support messages shared online among individuals coping with illness. Commun Monogr 2015; 82: 403– 430.
  13. [17]Hund A Wagner H Beimborn D, et al. Digital innovation: review and novel perspective. J Strateg Inf Syst 2021; 30: 101695.
  14. [19]Venkatesh V Speier C Morris MG. User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: toward an integrated model. Decis Sci 2002; 33: 297– 316.
  15. [22]Fujioka N Kobayahi T Turale S. Short-term behavioral changes in pregnant women after a quit-smoking program via e-learning: a descriptive study from Japan. Nurs Health Sci 2012; 14: 304– 311. 22950611
  16. [23]Horvath KJ Oakes JM Rosser BRS, et al. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of an online peer-to-peer social support ART adherence intervention. AIDS Behav 2013; 17: 2031– 2044. 23553347 PMC3674213
  17. [25]Blackstock OJ Haughton LJ Garner RY, et al. General and health-related internet use among an urban, community-based sample of HIV-positive women: implications for intervention development. AIDS Cure 2015; 27: 536– 544. PMC4312556 25411825
  18. [26]Banbury A Chamberlain D Nancarrow S, et al. Can videoconferencing affect older people’s engagement and perception of their social support in long-term conditions management: a social network analysis from the Telehealth Literacy Project. Health Soc Care Community 2017; 25: 938– 950. 27573127
  19. [27]Johnston DC Mathews WD Maus A, et al. Using smartphones to improve treatment retention among impoverished substance-using Appalachian women: a naturalistic study. Subst Abuse Res Treat 2019; 8: 1– 10. PMC6614935 31312084
  20. [29]Travis J Roeder K Walters H, et al. Telephone-based mutual peer support for depression: a pilot study. Chronic Illn 2010; 6: 183– 191. 20634226 PMC3732816
  21. [30]Heisler M Halysyamani L Cowne ME, et al. A randomized controlled effectiveness trial of reciprocal peer support in heart failure. Circ Heart Fail 2013; 6: 246– 253. 23388114 PMC3782294
  22. [32]Burner E Lam CN DeRoss R, et al. Using mobile health to improve social support for low-income Latino patients with diabetes: a mixed-methods analysis of the feasibility trial of Text-MED + FANS. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018; 20: 39– 48. 29227155 PMC5770080
  23. [33]Toija AS Kettunen TH Ledenius MHK, et al. Effectiveness of peer support on health-related quality of life in recently diagnosed breast cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. Support Care Cancer 2019; 27: 123– 130. 30338354 PMC6280804
  24. [34]Baldwin PA Sanatkar S Clarke J, et al. A web-based mental health intervention to improve social and occupational functioning in adults with type 2 diabetes (The Springboard Trial): 12-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e16729. PMC7738252 33258790
  25. [35]Marshall J Devane N Talbot R, et al. A randomized trial of social support group intervention for people with aphasia: a novel application of virtual reality. PLoS One 2020; 15: 1– 21. PMC7514104 32970784
  26. [36]Welch L Orlando R Lin SX, et al. Findings from a pilot randomized trial of a social network self-management intervention in COPD. BMC Pulm Med 2020; 20: 1– 14. 32513163 PMC7278059
  27. [37]Yi JC Sullivan B Leisenring WM, et al. Who enrolls in an online cancer survivorship program? Reach of the INSPIRE randomized controlled trial for hematopoietic cell transplantation survivors. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2020; 26: 1948– 1954. 32599215 PMC7529848
  28. [38]Yu Y Li Y Li T, et al. New path to recovery and well-being: cross-sectional study on WeChat use and endorsement of WeChat-based mHealth among people living with schizophrenia in China. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e18663. PMC7532456 32945774
  29. [40]Blakeman T Blickem C Kennedy A, et al. Effect of telephone and telephone-guided access to community support for people with chronic kidney disease: randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2014; 9: e109135. PMC4199782 25330169
  30. [41]Han JY Hou J Kim E, et al. Lurking as an active participation process: a longitudinal investigation of engagement with an online cancer support group. Health Comm 2014; 29: 911– 923. PMC4469645 24345206
  31. [42]Merolli M Gray K Martin-Sanchez F. Therapeutic affordances of social media: emergent themes from a global online survey of people with chronic pain. J Med Internet Res 2014; 16: e284. PMC4285739 25533453
  32. [43]Owen JE Bantum EO Gorlick A, et al. Engagement with a social networking intervention for cancer-related distress. Ann Behav Med 2015; 49: 154– 164. 25209353 PMC4355154
  33. [44]Namkoong K Shar DV Gustafson DH. Offline social relationships and online cancer communication: effects of social and family support on online social network building. Health Commun 2017; 32: 1422– 1429. 27824257 PMC6095462
  34. [45]Wise M Marchand LR Roberts LJ, et al. Suffering in advanced cancer: a randomized control trial of a narrative intervention. J Palliat Med 2018; 21: 200– 207. 29135330 PMC5797325
  35. [46]Gavrilla V Garrity A Hirschfeld E, et al. Peer support through a diabetes social media community. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019; 13: 493– 497. 30600704 PMC6501537
  36. [48]des Bordes JKA Foreman J Westrich-Robertson T, et al. Interactions and perceptions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis participating in an online support group. Clin Rheumatol 2020; 39: 1775– 1782. 32006180 PMC8938929
  37. [49]Valentine L McEnery C O’Sullivan S, et al. Young people’s experience of a long-term social media-based intervention for first-episode psychosis: qualitative analysis. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e17570. PMC7381038 32384056
  38. [50]Chen AT Ge S Cho S, et al. Reactions to COVID-19, information and technology use, and social connectedness among older adults with pre-frailty and frailty. Geriatr Nurs 2021; 42: 188– 195. 32863038 PMC7416746
  39. [51]Corbett CF Combs EM Wright PJ, et al. Virtual home assistant use and perceptions of usefulness by older adults and support person dyads. International J Environ Res Publ Health 2021; 8: 113. PMC7908177 33513798
  40. [52]Lazard AJ Collins MJR Hedrick A, et al. Using social media for peer-to-peer cancer support: interviews with young adults with cancer. JMIR Cancer 2021; 7: e28234. PMC8446843 34473063
  41. [53]Paul CD Thomas EV Doulin AM, et al. Using wireless technology to support social connectedness in individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a focus group study. J Spec Educ Technol 2022; 37: 276– 285.
  42. [54]Tan YT Rehm IC Stevenson JI, et al. Social media peer support groups for obsessive-compulsive disorders: understanding the predictors of negative experiences. J Affect Disord 2021; 281: 661– 672. 33234279
  43. [55]Reddy P Sharma B Chaudhary K. Digital literacy: a review of literature. Int J Technoethics 2020; 11: 65– 94.
  44. [57]Langford CP Bowsher J Maloney JP, et al. Social support: a conceptual analysis. J Adv Nurs 1997; 25: 95– 100. 9004016
  45. [58]Yang CY Boen C Gerken K, et al. Social relationships and physiological determinants of longevity across the human life span. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2016; 113: 578– 583. 26729882 PMC4725506
  46. [59]Health Affairs. Social isolation and health. [Policy Brief]. Health Affairs, https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20200622.253235/ (2020, accessed 29 July 2023). · DOI
  47. [60]Gentili A Failla G Melnyk A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions: a systematic review of the literature. Public Health Front 2022; 10: 787135. PMC9403754 36033812
  48. [61]De R Pandey N Pal A. Impact of digital surge during COVID-19 pandemic: a viewpoint on research and practice. Int J Inf Manage 2020; 55: 102171. 32836633 PMC7280123
  49. [62]Lythreatis S Singh SK El-Kassar A-N. The digital divide: a review and future research agenda. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2022; 175: 1– 11.
  50. [63]Reissman F. The helper-therapy principle. Soc Work 1965; 10: 27– 32.
  51. [64]Khosravi P Rezvani A Wiewiora A. The impact of technology on older adults’ social isolation. Comput Hum Behav 2016; 63: 594– 603.
  52. [67]Shaw G Whelan ME Armitage LC, et al. Are COPD self-management mobile applications effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim Care Respir Med 2020; 30: 1– 10. PMC7113264 32238810
  53. [68]Cotton SR Schuster AM Seifert A. Social media use and well-being among older adults. Curr Opin Psychol 2022; 45: 101293. 35065352
  54. [69]Di Giacoma D Ranieri J D’Amico M, et al. Psychological barriers to digital living in older adults: computer anxiety as predictive mechanism for technophobia. Behav Sci 2019; 9: 96. 31514364 PMC6770433
  55. [71]Smith TB Workman C Andrews C, et al. Effects of psychosocial support interventions on survival in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings: a meta-analysis of 106 randomized controlled trials. PLoS Med 2021; 18: 1– 25. PMC8130925 34003832
  56. [72]Armstrong S Oomen-Early J. Social connectedness, self-esteem, and depression symptomology among collegiate athletes versus nonathletes. J Am Coll Health 2009; 57: 521– 526. 19254893
  57. [73]Creaven A-M Healy A Howard S. Social connectedness and depression: is there added value in volunteering? J Soc Pers Relatsh 2018; 35: 1400– 1417.
  58. [74]Dorji N Dunne MP Seib C, et al. Quality of life among senior citizens in Bhutan: associations with adverse life experiences, chronic diseases, spirituality, and social connectedness. Asia Pac J Public Health 2017; 29: 35– 46. 28198648
  59. [75]Morris ME Adair B Ozanne E, et al. Smart technologies to enhance social connectedness in older people who live at home. Australas J Ageing 2014; 33: 142– 152. 24730370
  60. [76]Rogers WA Mitzner TL. Envisioning the future for older adults: autonomy, health, well-being, and social connectedness with technology support. Futures 2017; 87: 133– 139. 28458395 PMC5407378
  61. [77]Williams KL Galliher RV. Predicting depression and self-esteem from social connectedness, support, and competence. J Soc Clin Psychol 2006; 25: 855– 874.
  62. [78]Bethell J Aelick K Babineau J, et al. Social connection in long-term care homes: a scoping review of published research on the mental health impacts and potential struggles during COVID-19. J Am Med Directors Assoc 2021; 22: 228– 237. PMC9186333 33347846
  63. [79]Hudson RB. Lack of social connectedness and its consequences. Public Policy Aging Rep 2017; 27: 121– 123.
  64. [80]Lem K McGilton KS Aelick K, et al. Social connection and physical health outcomes among long- term care home residents: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr 2021; 21: 1– 10. 34922469 PMC8683818
  65. [81]Yan L. Good intentions, bad outcomes: the effects of mismatches between social support and health outcomes in an online weight loss community. Prod Oper Manag 2018; 27: 9– 27.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wright, P. J., Raynor, P. A., Bowers, D., Combs, E. M., Corbett, C. F., Hardy, H., & Patel, K.
Affiliations
University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Wright, Pamela J
ORCID
Venue
DIGITAL HEALTH
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2023-01
Volume
9
Pages
20552076231204746-20552076231204746
ISSN
2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/20552076231204746
PMC
PMC10548813
OpenAlex
W4387317058
Cited by
39
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
NIH (1K23DA051626-01A1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
digital technologies, social connectedness, chronic disease, social support, digital literacy, self-efficacy, mental health outcomes, physical health outcomes, quality of life, social integration, digital interventions, usability, accessibility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review