Population aging has become a critical issue in global policy discourse, which poses challenges to public service provision, social protection systems, and governmental capacity. China, as one of the world’s most populous countries, is experiencing rapid demographic aging on a large scale. By the end of 2024, the population aged 60 and above had reached 310 million, accounting for 22.0% of the total population, and those aged 65 and above numbered 220 million, representing 15.6% of the population (Ministry of Civil Affairs, 2025). As the aging population expands, traditional aged care systems face growing pressures, such as resource constraints, service efficiency, and limited capacity for personalized care. In this context, digital technologies have been widely promoted as a key avenue for responding to population aging, given their potential to integrate resources, support service coordination, and extend care provision beyond conventional settings (Barnett et al., 2020; Hamblin, 2022). In recent years, the Chinese government has introduced national strategies to proactively address challenges posed by population aging (Feng & Gu, 2025) and placed growing emphasis on the development of technology-enabled services (Yang et al., 2025). Since 2020 in particular, a range of policy initiatives have been introduced to promote the application of digital technologies in aged care services, with the stated aims of improving service efficiency and enhancing the quality of life of older adults (Peng et al., 2023). However, the development of digital aged care is not merely a technical matter. Its implementation trajectories, governance arrangements, and long-term sustainability depend critically on how policies are designed, how policy instruments are configured, and how responsibilities are distributed among different actors. As an essential instrument of public governance, digital aged care policy plays a central role in shaping the behavior of technology developers and service providers, the allocation of public resources, and regulation of service markets. At the same time, such policies are expected to coordinate multiple stakeholders, ensure service quality, and safeguard the service system. Understanding how these policy functions are articulated through the configuration of policy instruments is important to observe the governance of digital care. Against this backdrop, this study systematically examines China’s digital aged care policies issued between 2020 and 2025. Through analysis of policy content, it investigates how policy instruments are configured to address challenges associated with population aging and identifies key characteristics and emerging challenges within Chinese policy landscape. By providing insights into China’s digital aged care policy framework, the study enriches international understanding of policy responses to population aging and facilitates cross-national dialogue on digital care. To systematically examine the digital aged care policy landscape in China between 2020 and 2025, this study constructs a two-dimensional analytical framework consisting of policy instruments (X dimension) and policy targets (Y dimension). It aims to reveal how the Chinese government employs different policy instruments to promote technology-enabled care services, and how these instruments are directed toward different policy target groups. It then examines whether the configuration of policy instruments aligns with the development objective of digital aged care, which places older adults as the core beneficiary group. Along the X dimension (policy instruments), this study applies the policy framework developed by Rothwell and Zegveld and classifies policy tools into three categories: supply-side, environmental, and demand-side instruments (Rothwell, 1985; Rothwell & Zegveld, 1985; Zhu et al., 2023). To be specific, supply-side instruments focus on strengthening supply capacity and include seven sub-instruments: direct financial subsidies, technological support, provision of physical space, investment in facilities and infrastructure, information and digital services, human resource development and training, and pilot and demonstration programs. Environmental instruments aim to shape the broader development environment and comprise six sub-instruments: strategic planning and policy objectives, regulatory procedures and administrative guidelines, tax incentives and fiscal preferences, legal frameworks and regulatory oversight, technical standards and standardization systems, and public communication and policy advocacy. Demand-side instruments focus on stimulating actual uptake and application and include four sub-instruments: public procurement, contracting-out of services, market development and stimulation, and public–private and cross-sector collaboration (Rothwell, 1985; Zhu et al., 2023). Details are presented in Table 1. Policy instruments. Financial subsidies X1-1 Technological support X1-2 Provision of physical space X1-3 Investment in facilities and infrastructure X1-4 Information and digital services X1-5 Human resource development and training X1-6 Pilot and demonstration programs X1-7 Strategic planning and policy objectives X2-1 Regulatory procedures and administrative guidelines X2-2 Tax incentives and fiscal preferences X2-3 Legal frameworks and regulatory oversight X2-4 Technical standards and standardization systems X2-5 Public communication and policy advocacy X2-6 Public procurement X3-1 Contracting-out of services X3-2 Market development and stimulation X3-3 Public–private and cross-sector collaboration X3-4 Along the Y dimension (policy targets), as illustrated in Figure 1, this study identifies three categories of primary groups targeted by policies. The first category comprises the technology and industrial system, including actors involved in digital technology research and development, digital platforms, industry enterprises, and entities responsible for information system development. The second category consists of service providers, including aged care institutions, community-based organizations, grassroots service networks, and the care workforce. The third category includes older adults and their families, who are the end users of digital care services and technologies, encompassing older individuals themselves as well as family caregivers. Two-dimensional analytical framework. This study collected policy documents related to digital aged care from official government websites and authoritative databases, including the Peking University Law Database. Guided by the analytical framework developed in this study, a total of 85 policy documents issued between 2020 and 2025 were identified as directly relevant to digital aged care and selected for analysis. Representative policy initiatives include the Action Plan for the Development of the Smart Health and Aged Care Industry (2021–2025), the Notice on Promoting Demonstration Cases of Smart Technology Applications for Older Adults, and the Notice on Addressing Older Adults’ Difficulties in Using Smart Technologies and Facilitating Access to Smart Products and Services (Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, 2021a; Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, 2021b; National Development & Reform Commission, 2021). These policy initiatives aim to encourage the integration of emerging digital technologies into aged care services while addressing digital barriers faced by older adults. To ensure analytical rigor and reliability, two researchers independently coded the policy texts using NVivo 15. Iterative coding and discussion were then undertaken to refine the categorization and analysis. Along the X dimension, supply-side instruments emerge as the predominant category in the policy texts, which indicates a supply-side–dominant instrument configuration. Within the category of supply-side instruments (X1), policy tools such as technological support, information services, investment in facilities and infrastructure, pilot and demonstration programs, and direct financial support are repeatedly employed across policy documents. This pattern reflects a policy mix characterized by substantial resource input combined with demonstration-oriented guidance. By contrast, within the same category, instruments related to human resource development are notably limited: only three policy documents explicitly focus on the training of specialized care workforce. In comparison, environmental instruments (X2) are concentrated primarily on strategic planning, the development of standardization systems, and publicity and outreach. These instruments function mainly to provide strategic direction and institutional support for the development of digital aged care, rather than directly intervening in technology-enabled service provision. By contrast, demand-side instruments remain relatively underdeveloped within the overall policy instrument system and are articulated primarily through indirect measures, such as market activation mechanisms and government-led promotion initiatives. Direct mechanisms to encourage uptake among older adults and their families remain largely absent. Overall, this policy instrument configuration suggests that China’s digital aged care policies continue to rely heavily on government-led, supply-side guidance and intervention. Policy efforts are predominantly oriented toward promoting digital aged care through resource investment, technological advancement, and institutional development, rather than through demand incentives and user choice–based mechanisms. Such a policy structure may limit user agency in the policy process, and older adults’ actual needs and feedback are less likely to directly inform policy design and the adjustment of policy instruments. Selected policy documents show that since 2021, the Chinese government has implemented annual pilot and demonstration programs in the field of smart health and aged care, selecting exemplary and representative social enterprises and service organizations. These entities are supported through complementary measures, including policy publicity and fiscal incentives. Through this policy design, pilot and demonstration programs serve as instruments for replication and diffusion, supporting the broader scaling-up of digital care services. Cross-dimensional analysis of the coded policy texts shows that pilot and demonstration programs (X1-7) are applied across nearly all categories of policy targets. As such, they function as a key instrument linking the configuration of policy instruments (X dimension) with policy targets (Y dimension). This connective role becomes more evident when examining how pilot and demonstration programs are operationalized across different policy target levels. At the level of the technology and industrial system (Y1), pilot and demonstration programs link policy support with technological development by focusing resources on selected enterprises and platforms. This approach enables experimentation in research, development, and innovation models. At the level of service providers (Y2), these programs link technological outputs to service delivery by embedding pilot technologies and models within nursing homes, communities, and service organizations. Through this process, care providers become key intermediaries in policy implementation. By contrast, at the level of older adults and their families (Y3), pilot and demonstration programs primarily position older adults as end users rather than active participants in policy experimentation. Their involvement is largely channeled through pilot application settings and user experiences, with limited opportunities for active engagement. These findings indicate that pilot and demonstration programs do not operate as single-purpose policy instrument but instead perform multiple functions. As limited-scale policy experiments, pilot and demonstration programs enable governments to explore innovations in contexts of high uncertainty while containing overall policy risk (Zhu & Österle, 2019). Beyond this, such programs also serve as integrative platforms that link technology development, service provision, and user engagement within the current policy system. Through pilot projects, technological outcomes are embedded within aged care settings and subsequently connected to older adults’ actual use of technology-enabled services. Such a pilot-oriented policy instrument exhibits a high degree of feasibility and flexibility. It not only helps mitigate uncertainty associated with policy innovation, but also provides the government and relevant actors with space for experimentation and adjustment within a controlled scope. In this respect, pilot and demonstration programs display clear characteristics of experimental governance and represent a distinctive feature of China’s policy landscape. From the perspective of policy targets (Y dimension), digital aged care policies exhibit a clear imbalance across target groups. More specifically, the technology and industrial system (Y1) and service providers (Y2) are frequently referenced in policy texts and constitute the core policy targets. A range of policy instruments, including technological support, standardization systems, pilot and demonstration programs, infrastructure investment, and workforce development, are used to support the roles of industrial actors and service providers. These instruments position them as the primary actors in technological development and service delivery. By contrast, older adults and their families (Y3) are framed mainly as recipients and adapters within the current policy arena. Their roles are largely defined as service users, consumers, and participants in digital literacy or information training. There is limited provision for encouraging their participation in service design or policy feedback. The agency of older adults is inadequately reflected within the current policy framework. This configuration of policy targets indicates that policy attention is directed primarily toward the industrial system and service providers, whereas the needs of older adults are not incorporated into the policy agenda through direct empowerment mechanisms. Generally, policy targets are unevenly distributed across different actor groups. Fragmentation across policy instrument combinations. Based on the analysis of current policy content, China’s digital aged care policy system relies predominantly on supply-side policy instruments, whereas demand-side policy instruments remain relatively underdeveloped. This pattern suggests fragmentation in policy mix rather than the presence of a coordinated policy instrument package. Based on the policy content analysis, misalignments can also be observed among policy instruments, policy objectives, and policy agendas. Such fragmentation is likely to undermine the overall coherence and long-term sustainability of digital aged care development. Coordination and fragmentation across policy-issuing agencies. Analysis of the issuing agencies across the 85 policy documents shows that the Ministry of Civil Affairs, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and the National Health Commission emerge as the primary policy actors. Policies jointly issued by these three ministries are relatively common. This indicates the formation of a core policy subsystem within China’s digital aged care policy landscape. At the same time, policies issued by single agencies still account for a substantial share of the policy corpus, with 41 documents released by independent departments. It suggests that coordination remains uneven across the policy system. Beyond this core subsystem, other departments such as the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development and the Ministry of Finance also participate in policy issuance. The involvement of these departments suggests that digital aged care policies are increasingly integrated into broader policy agendas related to other public service provision and consumption promotion. Taken together, these findings suggest that the policy system exhibits a certain degree of coordination. However, joint policy issuance does not necessarily translate into substantive coordination. To some extent, it also reflects symbolic coordination or patchwork collaboration. Further analysis of policy content indicates that, despite frequent rhetorical emphasis on interagency cooperation, the division of responsibilities across departments remains insufficiently clear, and functional integration is limited. As a result, the policy system also faces risks of functional fragmentation. Coordination and fragmentation across policy target groups. Despite evidence of selective interagency coordination at the institutional level, coordination across policy target groups in China’s digital aged care policies remains limited. This reveals the uneven attention and structural fragmentation in policy targeting. Specifically, policy attention is disproportionately concentrated on industrial and technological actors (Y1) and service providers (Y2), whereas older adults and their families as end users (Y3) receive comparatively less direct policy attention. Furthermore, the configuration of policy instruments across target groups reinforces this pattern. Instruments targeting Y1 and Y2 are dominated by supply-side and environmental measures, whereas demand-side or empowerment-oriented instruments for Y3 remain limited. This indicates that interagency coordination does not automatically translate into coordinated governance across policy target groups. Within digital care service systems, effective integration across information platforms and digital devices is essential for enhancing service continuity and responsiveness. The compatibility of data interfaces, interoperability between systems, and the harmonization of information sharing directly affect the smooth operation of digital care services (Lion et al., 2023). However, analysis of policy content indicates that issues of data interoperability are not sufficiently addressed at the policy level. Specifically, references to unified data interface standards, system interoperability requirements, or cross-platform data-sharing mechanisms appear infrequently in policy texts and are often articulated in general or aspirational terms rather than through concrete policy instruments. Although current digital aged care policies actively encourage the expansion of technological applications, comparatively little attention is devoted to standardization instruments that support cross-platform data integration. As a result, data interoperability emerges as an identifiable challenge within the existing policy landscape. Policy content analysis shows that digital aged care policies place emphasis on the integration and sharing of older adults’ health data. Expressions such as “aggregating health big data of older adults” frequently appear in relevant policy documents, including the 14th Five-Year Plan for Civil Affairs Informatization and the 14th Five-Year Plan for National Health Informatization (Ministry of Civil Affairs, 2021; National Health Commission, 2022). However, institutional arrangements addressing data security and privacy protection remain relatively underdeveloped. Coding results indicate that policy instruments related to legal regulation and oversight are absent from the digital aged care policy system. In addition, policy documents rarely provide explicit guidance on the protection of older adults’ personal information, the boundaries of data use, or mechanisms of accountability. Digital devices and services associated with digital aged care routinely involve highly sensitive information, including health data, service utilization records, and data related to daily activities (Barnett et al., 2020). In this context, data security and privacy protection are of critical importance for older adults and service users. Nevertheless, evidence from the policy texts suggests that data security and privacy protection have yet to be systematically incorporated into the policy framework. As a result, data security and privacy protection emerge as an identifiable data governance challenge within the current policy landscape. This study employs a two-dimensional framework of policy instrument types and policy target groups to analyze 85 digital aged care policy documents issued in China between 2020 and 2025. The findings reveal a policy system characterized by strong government leadership, institutional support, and selective experimentation, through which digital technologies are promoted within the aged care sector. However, the analysis also identifies structural imbalances. Policy instruments are predominantly supply-oriented, with environmental instruments playing a supporting role and demand-side instruments remaining underdeveloped. At the same time, policy attention is largely directed toward technological and industrial systems and service providers, whereas older adults and their families occupy a more marginal position as policy targets. This configuration limits policy coherence and constrains the incorporation of user needs and experiences into policy processes. Policy attention is largely directed towards technological and industrial systems and service providers…limit[ing] policy coherence and constraining the incorporation of user needs and experiences into policy processes. These findings point to the need for a more coordinated policy mix that moves beyond a supply-driven logic. Greater attention to demand-oriented instruments, alongside strengthened standardization and regulatory safeguards, would enhance policy responsiveness and sustainability. More importantly, recentering older adults and their families within the policy framework is essential for aligning digital aged care development with its original objectives. By clarifying the configuration of policy instruments and targets, this study offers significant insights that enrich comparative discussions on aging policy and the governance of digitally enabled care. Greater attention to demand-oriented instruments, alongside strengthened standardisation and regulatory safeguards, would enhance policy responsiveness and sustainability. Supplementary material is available at Public Policy & Aging Report online. This work was supported by the Yunnan Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project in Education, China (Grant No. AC24003). The authors declare that they have no competing financial or nonfinancial interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: