ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
The double-edged sword of internet use in China's aging population: thresholds, mediation and digital health policy.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond access: how heterogeneity of internet use differentially shapes cognitive function among Chinese older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Improvements to the living environment and mental health among older adults: an empirical study based on the Chinese experience.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Association of Internet Use Frequency and Purpose with Subjective Well-Being in Japanese Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study from the Chofu-Digital-Choju Project.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
- Algorithm-associated digital addiction among older adults: mechanisms and public health implications for healthy aging.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Amid global aging and digital transformation, the dual effects of Internet use on health-its potential benefits and risks-remain a subject of debate. This study investigates the threshold effects of Internet use, the mediating role of physical activity, and the implications for digital health policy in China, revealing a compensation-vulnerability paradox among disadvantaged groups. Methods: The data were drawn from the 2020 China Family Panel Studies (CFPS), a nationally representative sample comprising 7,308 adults aged ≥45. We conducted multivariable regression with robustness checks and bootstrap mediation analysis. Nonlinear sensitivity was tested via U-shaped relationship validation and threshold effect identification. Results: Moderate Internet use (below 4.8 h/day) confers health benefits, but excessive use leads to adverse outcomes. Physical activity serves as a partial mediator in this relationship, exhibiting nonlinear mediation dynamics. Although the current average of 1.8 h/day of use internet is well below the harmful threshold, structural digital exclusion creates a compensation-vulnerability paradox: older and less-educated groups derive greater marginal health benefits from moderate use but face higher risks of overuse due to limited digital literacy and physiological constraints. Conclusion: Internet use offers conditional health benefits for older adults, contingent on usage thresholds and mediated by physical activity. Policymakers must balance targeted digital inclusion with safeguards against overuse, particularly for vulnerable groups. These findings highlight the need for time-bound digital health interventions and literacy programs to address the paradox of technological compensation and vulnerability, informing digital health policy in aging societies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.