Demonstrates improved ICT capacity in older adults, suggesting new approaches for digital engagement.
Purpose A program co-designed by consumer behaviour academics, older adults and educational/support agencies was developed to scale ways to bridge seniors’ information and communication technologies (ICT) capacity gap, improve users’ online experiences and mitigate perceived risks. Design/methodology/approach Research methods included interviews, surveys, workshops and evaluations of ICT resources. Through a co-design process, a model of risk-aware inclusion was developed, showing how confidence and trust, not just competence, drive sustained engagement with technology. Findings The primary output is the development of open-source, scalable impact tools and online resources to improve ICT capacity. The primary outcome is expanded means and use of ICT educational opportunities. The primary impact is an improved policy implementation of ICT education and overall well-being. Research limitations/implications Participants were recruited primarily from a socially connected, educated and digitally motivated older adult population. This introduces potential selection bias and limits the generalisability of the findings to the most digitally excluded populations. Practical implications The resulting ICT resources provide governments, industry and affinity organisations with resources to support older adults based on actual lived experiences, tailored workshops, educational programs and partnerships. Social implications Social impacts are evident in online resources for improving ICT capacity, which help mitigate consumers’ social isolation and related health concerns. Originality/value This project is distinctive in how it reconceptualised digital inclusion by shifting the analytical and practical focus from skills acquisition to risk perception. Rather than assuming older adults’ exclusion stems from a lack of technical ability, the project demonstrated that perceived security, privacy and functional risks are the primary barriers to digital participation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: