“Easy Life or Chaos?”: Older Adults’ Digital Experiences,Well-Being,and Patterns of Engagement: A Qualitative Study

Design

In this study, a phenomenological orientation was adopted to explore how older adults interpreted and made sense of their digital experiences in everyday life. Phenomenology seeks to understand the meanings embedded within lived experiences and how individuals construct these experiences subjectively. ²¹ While the analysis involved an inductive thematic organization of the data, the interpretive process remained grounded in participants lived meanings and subjective experiences related to digital engagement. This approach enabled both phenomenological depth and analytical flexibility.

Participants

Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling strategies. The study was conducted in Türkiye in urban and semi-urban residential settings between [November-January, 2025]. Initial participants were identified through community networks, including local neighbourhood contacts and social circles of the researchers. Subsequently, participants were asked to refer other eligible individuals who met the inclusion criteria, allowing for diversification of the sample. Inclusion criteria were: (1) being aged 65 years or older, (2) residing in Türkiye, (3) having at least minimal experience with or exposure to digital technologies (e.g., mobile phone use, television-based digital services, or interaction with digital platforms). Individuals with severe cognitive impairment or communication difficulties that would prevent meaningful participation were excluded. Participants were recruited from urban and rural contexts, and variation in socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, education level, and employment status) was intentionally sought to enhance diversity and support transferability. Variation in participants’ urban and semi-urban living contexts was intentionally considered to enhance diversity in the sample, as these contexts may influence factors such as family support, access to digital infrastructure, economic resources, access to healthcare and public services, and the practical use of digital technologies in everyday life.

A total of 22 participants were included. All participants completed the interview process, and no withdrawals occurred. Sample size was determined according to the principle of data saturation. Saturation was monitored during analysis and was considered achieved when no new codes or themes emerged in three consecutive interviews (P19–P22). This procedure is consistent with phenomenological research standards prioritizing depth over breadth.⁵² Descriptive characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Information of the Participants

Participant	Age	Gender	Marital status	Educational level	Employment status	Living area
P1	68	Male	Married	Bachelor’s degree	Retired	Urban
P2	73	Female	Married	High school	Housewife	Urban
P3	66	Male	Single	Primary school	Employed	Rural
P4	71	Female	Single	High school	Retired	Rural
P5	81	Female	Married	High school	Housewife	Urban
P6	83	Male	Married	Secondary school	Retired	Urban
P7	69	Female	Single	Primary school	Housewife	Rural
P8	74	Female	Married	High school	Retired	Urban
P9	74	Male	Married	Bachelor’s degree	Retired	Urban
P10	79	Female	Single	Secondary school	Retired	Urban
P11	67	Female	Single	Secondary school	Housewife	Urban
P12	65	Male	Single	Bachelor’s degree	Employed	Urban
P13	65	Male	Married	Bachelor’s degree	Retired	Urban
P14	84	Male	Married	Secondary school	Retired	Rural
P15	77	Male	Married	Secondary school	Retired	Urban
P16	73	Male	Single	Bachelor’s degree	Employed	Urban
P17	68	Male	Single	Primary school	Retired	Rural
P18	67	Female	Married	Bachelor’s degree	Employed	Urban
P19	68	Female	Single	Primary school	Retired	Rural
P20	72	Male	Single	Secondary school	Retired	Rural
P21	70	Male	Married	Primary school	Retired	Rural
P22	76	Female	Married	Primary school	Housewife	Urban

Data Collection Tool

The data were collected using a semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers, consisting of seven main questions addressing the sub-questions of the study. During development, the relevant literature was reviewed and a matrix aligning the study purpose, research questions, and draft interview questions was constructed to ensure content relevance. Ten open-ended, non-directive draft questions were prepared and organized according to interview flow.

The draft form was reviewed by the research team and two psychological counsellors specializing in ageing. Based on their feedback, the guide was refined to eight main questions, with one alternative question and two probe questions added to the fourth and seventh items. A pilot interview was conducted with a 71-year-old retired male participant (excluded from the main sample) to assess clarity and duration. As no revisions were required, the interview form was finalized. The final guide included eight main questions, two alternative prompts, and probe questions. The complete interview guide is provided as a Supplementary File 1 to ensure transparency and replicability.

Data Collection Process

The interviews were conducted by GY, a member of the research team. The researcher holds a PhD degree in Guidance and Psychological Counseling and was working as a Research Assistant Dr. At the time of the study. The researcher’s research focuses on microaggressions toward older adults and the psychology of ageing.

All interviews were conducted face-to-face at participants’ homes upon request. No prior relationship existed between the interviewer and the participants before data collection, and only the inter-viewer and participant were present during each session. Field notes were taken concurrently to support and enrich the subsequent data analysis. Written informed consent was obtained prior to the interviews, and participants permitted audio recording. Interviews lasted approximately 23 minutes on average. One participant declined audio recording; in this case, detailed notes were taken and verified immediately after the interview. All recordings were transcribed verbatim and anonymized (P1, P2, etc.). Identifiable information was removed during transcription. Audio files and transcripts were stored on a password-protected device accessible only to the research team.

Data Analysis

Although themes were identified inductively, the analysis was guided by a phenomenological orientation focusing on how participants interpreted, emotionally experienced, and attributed meaning to digital engagement in later life. Rather than merely categorizing experiences, the analysis sought to understand the interconnected meanings, emotional responses, and adaptation processes embedded within participants’ narratives.

The analysis was conducted in five interconnected stages ²² : 1) familiarization with the data (multiple readings of transcripts), 2) open coding (generating initial codes inductively), 3) categorization (grouping codes into meaningful clusters), 4) theme development (refining categories into themes aligned with research questions), and 5) reporting (selecting illustrative quotations and linking findings to theory). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and anonymized (P1, P2, etc.). A total of 36 pages of qualitative data were compiled for analysis. Data saturation was monitored throughout the process and determined when no new codes or themes emerged after the last four interviews (P19–P22), which aligns with phenomenological research standards emphasizing depth.

To ensure rigor and minimize bias, coding was carried out independently by two researchers for the entire dataset. Both researchers performed multiple readings of all transcripts, generated initial codes separately, and then compared their coding outputs. Discrepancies were resolved through iterative discussions until full consensus was achieved, following best practices in qualitative reliability. ²³ Upon completion of data collection, transcriptions were verified through member checking to ensure data accuracy. During theme generation, Miles and Huberman’s criteria for internal homogeneity (coherence among codes within a theme) and external heterogeneity (clear differentiation across themes) were applied. ²⁴ For external validation, two experts in gerontology were consulted at the final stage of analysis to review the coding framework and thematic structure for accuracy and relevance. Their feedback was incorporated into the refinement of themes, thereby strengthening the credibility and confirmability of findings. ²³ For reporting, illustrative quotations were selected to represent each theme, and the relationship between codes and themes was continuously checked to ensure conceptual clarity. Themes were structured according to the revised research questions and interpreted within the theoretical lenses adopted in this study.

Trustworthiness and Credibility

To ensure trustworthiness, the study adhered to Lincoln and Guba’s four criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. ²³ Credibility was achieved by involving three researchers throughout the process, conducting independent coding of the entire dataset, and obtaining external validation from two gerontology experts who reviewed the coding framework and thematic structure for accuracy. Transferability was supported through detailed descriptions of the research context and participant characteristics, with demographic diversity presented in Table 1, allowing readers to assess applicability to other settings. Dependability was ensured by maintaining an audit trail documenting analytic decisions and theme development. Confirmability was strengthened through reflexive journaling and consensus-building discussions among researchers to acknowledge and critically reflect on potential biases. The relationships between codes and themes were continuously examined to ensure internal consistency and clear differentiation among themes. Findings were presented with direct quotations from participants to enhance transparency and illustrate the interpretive process.

This study has followed the EQUATOR guideline, specifically the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) ²⁵ checklist (Supplemental File 2).

The Role of Researchers

In phenomenological research, bracketing is essential to address researcher preconceptions. ²⁶ Prior to data collection, the researchers documented their assumptions regarding older adults and digital engagement in reflexive journals. These included expectations about potential hesitation toward digital technologies and challenges in adaptation. Throughout the research process, these assumptions were critically examined and reflected upon. The researchers engaged in ongoing reflexive practices to remain aware of their influence on data interpretation, rather than attempting to eliminate it entirely. All stages of the study—from data collection to analysis and reporting—were conducted in accordance with ethical principles, with particular attention to transparency, reflexivity, and the integrity of the interpretive process.

Theme 1: Meanings Attributed to Digital

Participants attributed both positive and ambivalent meanings to digital technologies, framing them as tools of convenience, speed, communication, and independence, while also associating them with disruption and uncertainty.

Digital was often constructed as enabling independence and efficiency. Participants described digital technologies as facilitating an “easy life” (P4), and allowing tasks to be completed “rapidly” (P7), emphasizing their role in simplifying everyday activities. At the same time, digital was perceived as expanding social connectivity, enabling communication across geographical distances.

However, these meanings were not uniformly positive. Some participants described digital technologies as destabilizing established routines and transforming traditional ways of living, at times characterizing them as creating “chaos” (P9).

These contrasting meanings indicate that digital technologies were not experienced merely as technical tools but as socially and emotionally loaded phenomena shaping participants’ perceptions of autonomy, participation, and adaptation to contemporary life. Participants who associated digital technologies with convenience, communication, and independence appeared more willing to engage with digital environments, whereas those who perceived digitalization as disruptive or chaotic expressed greater hesitation and emotional distancing. In this sense, meanings attributed to digital technologies functioned not only as personal interpretations but also as mechanisms influencing patterns of engagement and exclusion.

Theme 2: Digital Experiences: Facilitators and Barriers

Participants’ digital experiences were characterized by a dynamic interplay between facilitating and challenging conditions, shaped by access to resources, prior knowledge, and social environments.

Facilitating experiences included “maintaining social connections” (P3), “managing daily tasks” (P1), and “supporting health-related practices” (P20). Participants frequently described using digital tools for “communication” (P17), “online appointments” (P14), and “accessing health information” (P6), highlighting the role of digital engagement in everyday functioning and health management. These facilitating experiences suggest that digital technologies were often perceived as practical resources supporting autonomy, continuity in daily life, and participation in increasingly digitalized service environments. In particular, participants associated successful digital engagement with greater independence in managing health-related and social responsibilities.For example, one participant explained how digital technologies supported health-related practices:

…the biggest challenge for us, the older adults, is health issues. We often use digital when scheduling online appointments, setting medication reminders, and following exercises and nutrition information from videos. This allows us to manage circumstances related to our health more easily. (P9)

This illustrates how digital technologies can extend older adults’ capacity for self-management and independence, particularly in relation to healthcare access. At the same time, participants reported multiple barriers, including limited technological knowledge, economic constraints, and experiences of ageism. Some described “having access to devices but lacking the skills to use them effectively” (P16), while others emphasized “financial limitations” (P2) or “discouraging social attitudes” (P20). Participants’ accounts further revealed that these barriers were not experienced as isolated technical difficulties but as interconnected structural and emotional challenges influencing confidence, participation, and access to digitalized services. Experiences of limited competence, financial restriction, and discouraging social attitudes often reinforced feelings of inadequacy and hesitancy toward digital engagement. These challenges reflect structural and social dimensions of the digital divide, shaping unequal opportunities for digital engagement.

Taken together, participants’ digital experiences reflected an ongoing negotiation between opportunities for inclusion and risks of exclusion. While supportive experiences strengthened autonomy and participation, challenging experiences frequently contributed to emotional distancing, dependence on others, and unequal access to digital resources and services.

Theme 3: Impacts of Digital Engagement on Well-Being

Importantly, participants’ digital experiences translated into distinct cognitive, behavioral, and emotional impacts that directly shaped their sense of well-being. Challenging experiences often resulted in “avoidance” (P4, P6), “dependence on others” (P7), and “reduced confidence” (P5), whereas positive experiences fostered “autonomy” (P22), “engagement” (P19), and “satisfaction” (P18). These findings suggest that digital engagement was experienced not merely as a technological activity but as a process closely connected to participants’ self-perceptions, relational autonomy, and emotional well-being.

Cognitively, participants developed self-perceptions of inadequacy, difference, or dependence, particularly when comparing themselves with younger generations. These perceptions often undermined their sense of competence and contributed to reduced confidence in navigating digital environments. As one participant reflected: “…The youth do these things very easily, but I can’t learn as fast; I guess our generation is different.” (P5). Similarly, another participant expressed a sense of limitation linked to age: “…Sometimes I feel like I will never learn how to use these devices; it is too late for people at my age.” (P2). Dependence on others also emerged as a key cognitive and relational outcome, affecting participants’ sense of autonomy: “…Everything has become digital, so I am dependent on my children…” (P7). These cognitive perceptions appeared to shape how participants positioned themselves within increasingly digitalized environments, influencing both their confidence and willingness to participate independently.

Behaviorally, these cognitive perceptions translated into different patterns of engagement, including avoidance, distancing, resistance, and help-seeking. For some participants, fear of making mistakes led to withdrawal from digital environments: “…I don’t want to get involved; anyway, I am afraid that I will get into trouble.” (P6). Others described deliberate distancing or resistance: “I keep away from digital stuffs… I try to keep distance away from them as much as possible.” (P4). At the same time, some participants adopted help-seeking behaviors as a way to cope with digital demands, relying on family members or close social networks: “I need to make a transaction at the bank… I ask my granddaughter to come and handle it.” (P8). This indicates that behavioral responses were closely intertwined with emotional and cognitive experiences, reflecting ongoing negotiations between autonomy, dependence, and adaptation.

Emotionally, digital engagement produced a wide spectrum of responses, including helplessness, disappointment, anger, fear, loneliness, and happiness. These emotional experiences were central to participants’ well-being and were closely tied to their sense of inclusion or exclusion within digital environments. For example, one participant described how digital difficulties led to feelings of helplessness: “Sometimes, when I wish to download an application, I find myself unable to do so without seeking assistance from someone, leaving me with a sense of helplessness.” (P1). Feelings of exclusion and loneliness were also evident: “It feels like everyone is just hanging out online while I am totally out of the loop. I am feeling pretty lonely right now.” (P6). In contrast, successful engagement with digital technologies generated positive emotional outcomes, reinforcing well-being and a sense of achievement: “I figured out how to do video calls… This totally makes me happy.” (P10). Positive emotional experiences appeared to strengthen participants’ confidence and motivation, increasing their willingness to remain engaged with digital environments.

Importantly, these emotional responses did not remain isolated experiences but functioned as mechanisms shaping subsequent behavior. Negative emotions such as fear, frustration, and perceived inadequacy often led to withdrawal, avoidance, and reduced engagement, thereby limiting opportunities for participation and reinforcing digital exclusion. Conversely, positive experiences fostered confidence, motivation, and a greater willingness to engage, supporting ongoing adaptation and inclusion.

Taken together, these findings indicate that digital engagement is closely intertwined with well-being, operating through interconnected cognitive, behavioral, and emotional processes. These processes shape not only how older adults interact with digital technologies but also how they experience autonomy, inclusion, and quality of life in increasingly digitalized contexts. Rather than functioning as isolated reactions, cognitive perceptions, emotional responses, and behavioral adaptations appeared to reinforce one another, creating cyclical patterns that either facilitated digital inclusion or contributed to ongoing exclusion.

Theme 4: Coping and Adaptation Strategies

Participants developed a range of strategies to navigate digital challenges, which can be understood as part of broader adaptation processes. These strategies reflected participants’ efforts not only to manage technological demands but also to preserve autonomy, maintain participation in everyday life, and reduce feelings of exclusion within increasingly digitalized environments. Self-directed strategies included “gradual learning” (P9), “trial-and-error” (P7), “establishing routines” (P3), and “using guidelines” (P14), reflecting efforts to maintain autonomy. Participants described learning step by step and experimenting with devices to understand their functions. Self-directed adaptation strategies often appeared to strengthen participants’ sense of competence and control, supporting more active engagement with digital technologies.

In contrast, support-seeking strategies involved relying on “family members” (P2), “social networks” (P3), or “formal training opportunities” (P22). Participants frequently sought assistance from children, neighbours, or professionals, and some attended structured training programs to improve their digital skills. These support mechanisms functioned not only as practical resources but also as relational forms of encouragement that facilitated continued participation in digital environments. One participant illustrated how multiple strategies, including formal training and practical application, were combined in everyday life:

Last year, I attended a technology course organized by the municipality, where I learned how to use the internet. I am a farmer, and drones can spread seeds in the field. This is a great technology. A training session for this technology was held in another city, and I attended that as well. I then started using it in my own work, and some of my employees also received this training. (P22)

This example demonstrates how structured learning opportunities, when combined with personal motivation and contextual relevance, can support active adaptation and integration of digital technologies into daily practices. It also suggests that adaptation was more likely when digital technologies were perceived as meaningful, applicable, and connected to participants’ existing social and occupational roles.

These strategies played a crucial role in shaping whether participants adapted to digital environments or remained excluded. While self-directed learning often strengthened confidence and independence, reliance on external support sometimes reinforced dependency, particularly when access to support was limited. Taken together, coping and adaptation strategies appeared to function as dynamic processes through which participants negotiated autonomy, dependence, inclusion, and participation in everyday digital life.

Theme 5: Needs in Digital Processes

Participants identified a range of needs emerging from their digital experiences, reflecting educational, technical, and social dimensions. These needs were closely linked to the challenges and impacts described in earlier themes and highlight the conditions required for more inclusive digital engagement. Participants’ accounts suggested that these needs extended beyond individual skill deficits and reflected broader expectations regarding accessibility, support, and meaningful participation in digitalized environments.

Educational needs focused on practical and accessible digital literacy training, particularly oriented toward everyday use. Participants emphasized the importance of learning “how” and “why” to use digital technologies (P1), as well as developing practical skills applicable to daily life (P8). Concerns about internet safety were also prominent, with participants highlighting the need for greater awareness and protection against risks such as fraud and misinformation (P9). Educational support appeared particularly important in reducing fear, strengthening confidence, and enabling more independent engagement with digital systems.

Technical needs included simplified device interfaces, clearer instructions, and more user-friendly systems. Participants frequently referred to difficulties in navigating complex technologies, suggesting that existing designs do not adequately accommodate age-related changes or learning processes. These findings indicate that digital exclusion was associated not only with users’ competencies but also with the accessibility and usability of technological systems themselves.

Social needs were equally prominent, including emotional support, encouragement, and opportunities for intergenerational interaction. Participants highlighted that learning digital skills is not solely a technical process but also a social one, requiring trust and supportive environments. This was reflected in participants’ emphasis on the need for “encouragement” and “guidance” (P7). Supportive social relationships appeared to function as important facilitators of adaptation, helping participants remain engaged despite feelings of uncertainty or inadequacy.

Taken together, these needs point not only to individual-level challenges but also to broader structural gaps in digital inclusion efforts. Addressing these needs requires integrated approaches that combine education, user-centered technological design, and socially supportive learning environments. Overall, participants’ needs reflected the interconnected nature of digital inclusion, suggesting that meaningful participation in digital life depends on the interaction between individual capacities, accessible technologies, and supportive social contexts.

Pattern of Digital Experiences

Findings suggest that digital engagement operates as an interconnected process rather than a set of isolated experiences. Figure 1 shows the themes related to digital experiences based on the participants’ responses and the correlations between the sub-themes and codes, if any, with a holistic approach.OPEN IN VIEWER

When Figure 1, which illustrates the pattern of older adults’ perceptions of their digital and digital-related experiences, was examined, it became evident that participants reported two main types of experiences: facilitating and challenging. These variations were closely linked to the meanings they attributed to the concept of digital, such as ease, speed, or chaos. Depending on these experiences, participants were affected in multiple ways—behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally—resulting in reactions like avoidance, feelings of inadequacy, or even happiness. During the process, older adults developed different coping strategies, ranging from self-directed problem-solving to seeking social support, while expressing diverse needs in educational, technical, and social domains. As shown in Figure 1, participants’ conceptualizations of digital influenced the nature of their experiences, which in turn shaped cognitive, behavioral, and emotional impacts. These impacts informed coping strategies and generated specific educational, technical, and social needs, demonstrating an interlinked process rather than isolated themes.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the sample reflects a specific socio-cultural and geographical context, which may limit the transferability of the findings. Participants were primarily recruited through community networks, which may introduce selection bias, particularly toward individuals with stronger social connections. Second, while the findings include insights related to health-related digital practices, the study was not exclusively focused on health. Rather, it examined digital engagement as a broader everyday phenomenon encompassing social participation, daily routines, and practical life management. As such, health-related interpretations should be understood within this wider context of everyday digital use. Third, the study did not systematically differentiate between types and complexity levels of digital technologies, which may influence the depth of analysis regarding digital tool use. Future research should examine domain-specific digital engagement (e.g., healthcare, finance, education) in greater detail.