Accessibility settings

Published on in Vol 9 (2026)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/75947, first published .
Broadband Access, Internet Use, and General Cognition in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Longitudinal Study

Broadband Access, Internet Use, and General Cognition in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Longitudinal Study

Broadband Access, Internet Use, and General Cognition in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Longitudinal Study

Authors of this article:

Fangfang Cheng1 Author Orcid Image ;   Li Cao2 Author Orcid Image

1Student Affairs Office, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China

2Information Technology Department, Inner Mongolia Medical University, 5th floor, Teaching Building, Xinhua Road, Hui Min District, Hohhot, China

Corresponding Author:

Li Cao, PhD


Background: Internet use may support cognitive health in aging populations, but the digital divide in access and use might worsen inequalities.

Objective: This study aimed to examine whether internet use mediates the long-term relationship between broadband access and cognitive function among middle-aged and older adults in China.

Methods: Using 3-wave data (2015‐2020) from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (N=6063), we applied parallel-process latent growth curve models to analyze trajectories of broadband access, internet use, and general cognition, adjusting for sociodemographic and time-varying covariates.

Results: Baseline broadband access predicted initial internet use (β=0.453; P<.001), and broadband access increases strongly forecasted rises in internet use (β=0.625; P<.001). Increased internet use was associated with improved baseline general cognition (β=0.470; P<.001) and more significant cognitive improvements over time (β=0.444; P=.006). Older age, lower educational level, and rural residence were correlated with lower initial digital engagement; however, participants from rural areas demonstrated a greater adoption rate. Health status and social activities initially positively influenced outcomes; however, their impact diminished by the final wave.

Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that internet use mediates the longitudinal relationship between broadband access and cognitive resilience. The observed cascading growth trajectories suggest that gradually bridging the digital divide may help mitigate cognitive decline.

JMIR Aging 2026;9:e75947

doi:10.2196/75947

Keywords



In the digital age, the internet is essential for accessing information, maintaining social connections, and managing daily tasks [1]. Approximately 2.6 billion people worldwide (32% of the population) remain offline as of 2024 [2]. The benefits of digital innovation are unevenly distributed, leading to a persistent “digital divide” [3]. The definition of “digital divide” has shifted from a simple binary notion of connectivity in the 1990s [4] to a 3-level framework of coverage and access, use, and real-world consequences [5,6], with significant effects on individual health and societal well-being [7,8].

Cognitive decline is one of the most substantial challenges faced by the older adult population in health and social care systems [9]. Cognitive decline, which can start as early as the age of 45 years [10], is a significant risk factor for disability, dementia, and death [11-13]. A notable increase in cognitive decline after the age of 65 years has been documented [14]. China, with the world’s largest older adult population, faces an increasing challenge: almost 20% of adults aged >60 years have mild cognitive impairment, with 6% developing dementia each year [15-18].

Since 2015, China’s Internet Plus initiative has rapidly improved digital infrastructure, especially broadband access [19,20]. Despite this progress, age remains a significant factor of inequality: older adults, particularly those living in rural areas, with less education, or lacking digital skills, often face exclusion from meaningful internet use [21-23]. A 2024 cohort study in Beijing revealed that nearly half of older adults experience an “internet use divide,” which correlates with reduced processing speed and overall cognitive performance [24].

This challenge aligns with a vital global goal: the United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021‐2030) [25]. The first progress report [26] highlights that, although many countries, including China, have developed laws and infrastructure for age-friendly environments, more than two-thirds still lack sufficient resources to fully implement their action plans. This problem is especially severe in low- and middle-income areas, where nearly 80% of the world’s older adults are expected to live by 2050 [26,27]. The World Bank states that increasing access alone is insufficient to bridge the digital divide as technological progress may exclude the targeted populations [28]. Therefore, digital inclusion should be regarded as an ongoing process incorporated into age-inclusive communities and an essential component of healthy aging [29].

Empirical studies increasingly suggest that internet use—not merely access—is an active factor influencing cognitive outcomes in later stages of life. An ecological analysis found that higher broadband coverage correlates with lower prevalence of cognitive disorders, suggesting that digital infrastructure may help mitigate cognitive health disparities among older adults [30]. However, broadband access is commonly associated with an area’s economic resources, enabling internet use and social interactions. For instance, one longitudinal study in Europe found that older adults who regularly used the internet exhibited slower cognitive decline over 2 years independent of baseline connectivity [31]. Similarly, research using nationally representative data from the United States demonstrated that changes in internet use had asymmetric effects on cognitive decline in older adults: initiating use slowed decline, whereas discontinuing use accelerated it [32]. Further supporting this distinction, another investigation using data from the China Family Panel Study found that the frequency and variety of internet activities positively contributed to cognitive functions [33]. These findings align with 2 complementary theoretical perspectives. First, a widely cited model of digital inequality posits that material access to technology constitutes only the initial layer of inclusion; its benefits emerge only when individuals acquire the skills, motivation, and opportunities to engage meaningfully with digital tools [5]. Second, the cognitive reserve hypothesis proposes that participation in cognitively stimulating activities builds neural resilience against age-related cognitive decline [34]. Thus, internet use—as a dynamic, interactive, and often socially embedded behavior—may serve as the behavioral bridge through which structural access translates into sustained cognitive benefit.

We hypothesize that internet use mediates the longitudinal association between household broadband access and cognitive function among middle-aged and older adults in China such that growth in access predicts increased use, which in turn predicts more favorable cognitive trajectories over time as shown in Figure 1. However, most existing research examines only isolated links. These include the relationships between broadband access and cognitive outcomes, and between technology use patterns and cognitive development. Most of this research relies on cross-sectional data. Few studies use longitudinal designs capable of modeling how disparities in digital infrastructure spread through behavior to affect cognitive aging. Using China’s rapid digitization and population aging as a natural experiment, this study applied parallel-process latent growth curve modeling (PP-LGCM) with nationally representative panel data to estimate trajectories of broadband access, internet use, and general cognition simultaneously and test whether internet use changes mediate the relationship between digital infrastructure and cognitive outcomes among middle-aged and older Chinese adults.

Figure 1. The hypothesized model of the digital divide across 3 waves. In this model, intercept factors—broadband access intercept (BAI), internet use intercept (IUI), and general cognition intercept (GCI)—capture baseline levels of broadband access, internet use, and cognitive function, respectively. Slope factors—broadband access slope (BAS), internet use slope (IUS), and general cognition slope (GCS)—represent the rates of change in these outcomes over time. T1: 2015; T2: 2018; T3: 2020.

Ethical Considerations

This study conducted a secondary analysis of deidentified, publicly available China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) data, exempt from additional ethics review. The original CHARLS was approved by Peking University’s Biomedical Ethics Review Committee (IRB00001052-11015), obtained written informed consent from all participants, and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and China’s Personal Information Protection Law. All procedures adhere to CHARLS protocols.

Participants

Participants were enrolled in 3 follow-ups of the CHARLS from 2015 to 2020. It is a nationally representative sample of the middle-aged and older adult population (aged ≥45 years) in China, a community-based longitudinal study conducted by the China Center for Economic Research at Peking University [35]. The CHARLS used a multistage, probability proportional to size sampling technique to select participants. The primary sampling units were administrative villages in rural areas and urban neighborhoods. The CHARLS data can be accessed through its official website [36]. It is designed to better understand the socioeconomic determinants and consequences of aging.

Data were drawn from 3 waves (2015 [T1], 2018 [T2], and 2020 [T3]) of the CHARLS. The baseline cohort included 23,459 participants. Of these 23,459 participants, we excluded individuals aged <45 years or >100 years and those with household consumption per capita equal to 0 at baseline (n=10,026, 42.7%), yielding 13,433 (57.3%) eligible respondents. From this group, we further excluded those with missing data on broadband access, internet use, or cognitive function (362/13,433, 2.7%) and those with a total cognitive score of 0 (143/13,433, 1.1%). An additional 1.1% (153/13,433) of the participants were excluded due to missing values for key time-invariant covariates (employment status, self-rated health, or household consumption per capita) at baseline. Of the remaining 12,775 participants with at least one valid cognitive measure, 6712 (52.5%) were lost to follow-up across the 3 waves, resulting in a final analytical sample of 6063 (47.5%) participants with sufficient longitudinal data for modeling.

Measurements

Dependent Variables

Cognitive function assessment tools included an adapted Chinese version of the Mini-Mental State Examination [37]. Four specific dimensions were assessed at each wave: orientation, episodic memory, calculation ability, and constructability. Orientation was measured by naming the date (day, month, season, and year) and day of the week (score range 0-5). For episodic memory, participants were first asked to immediately repeat as many as possible of 10 Chinese nouns that were read to them and then to recall the same list 5 minutes later (score range 0-10). Calculation ability was evaluated using the serial sevens subtraction task, which required participants to subtract 7 from 100 and continue subtracting 7 from each subsequent number 5 times (score range 0-5). Constructability was evaluated through a drawing task that assesses visuospatial skills and motor coordination (score range 0-1). General cognition was the sum of cognitive scores (range 0-21) [14] and was considered the digital outcome.

Independent and Mediating Variables

The primary independent variable was household broadband access. The digital divide was operationalized using 2 indicators aligned with the multilevel model by van Deursen and van Dijk [5] and Scheerder et al [38], measured using the question “Does your residence have a broadband internet connection?” (yes=1; no=0). The mediating variable was internet use, measured using the question “Have you accessed the Internet in the past month?” (yes=1; no=0).

Covariates

There were time-invariant sociodemographic factors (age, sex, educational level, rural residence, marital status, and household consumption per capita) and time-varying characteristics (self-rated health, social activity participation, and employment status) included, all measured at each wave.

Statistical Analysis

R (version 4.1.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing) was used for the purposes of descriptive and correlational analyses. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the participants, specifically frequencies with percentages for categorical variables and medians with IQRs for continuous variables. The lavaan package in R was used to perform structural equation modeling. PP-LGCM was implemented to investigate the cascading effects of digital divides on trajectories of cognitive function. For each domain, the baseline level (intercept) and the rate of change over time (slope) were modeled [39]. The cascade effect framework suggests that broadband access influences internet use, which subsequently affects the intercepts and slopes of cognitive function. Full information maximum likelihood was applied to address missing data by leveraging all available information from each participant. The following fit indexes were evaluated: the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Conventional thresholds stipulate that CFI and TLI values above 0.90 are acceptable, with values exceeding 0.95 indicating a good fit. For RMSEA and SRMR, values below 0.05 indicate a good fit, whereas values between 0.05 and 0.08 are acceptable [40]. In the conditional latent growth curve modeling and PP-LGCM analyses, demographic variables were incorporated as covariates.


Descriptive Statistics

A total of 6063 Chinese middle-aged and older adults were included in this study (Figure 2). Table 1 shows significant sociodemographic disparities in digital access and use. Individuals with broadband access and internet use were significantly younger, more educated, and more likely to reside in urban areas; reported better health; engaged in social activities; and had a higher household consumption (P<.001 in all cases). Men were more likely to be internet users (P<.001) but not among broadband owners (P=.79). Marital status and employment status showed minimal or no association with internet use (P=.10 and P=.29, respectively), although both differed slightly by broadband subscription (P<.001). Those who had broadband access and internet use also exhibited significantly higher cognitive function scores (median 15.5, IQR 14.5-16.5 vs median 12.5, IQR 10-14.5; P<.001), although the difference for broadband access was less pronounced (median 14.0, IQR 12-15.5 vs median 12.5, IQR 9.5-14.5; P<.001).

Figure 2. Flowchart of participant selection. CHARLS: China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants by digital divide status. The rank sum test was used for age and general cognition, and the chi-square test was used for other variables. Household consumption per capita was divided into 4 quartiles based on the 25th percentile.
VariableNo broadband access (n=4247)Broadband access (n=1816)P valueNo internet use (n=5545)Internet use (n=518)P value
Age (years), median (IQR)59 (52-65)53 (49-59)<.00158 (51-64)51 (47-56)<.001
Male sex, n (%).79<.001
 No2022 (47.6)872 (48.0)2708 (48.8)186 (35.9)
 Yes2225 (52.4)944 (52.0)2837 (51.2)332 (64.1)
Educational level, n (%)<.001<.001
 Primary school and lower1738 (40.9)317 (17.5)2048 (36.9)7 (1.4)
 Middle school1115 (26.3)354 (19.5)1419 (25.6)50 (9.7)
 High school964 (22.7)642 (35.4)1419 (25.6)187 (36.1)
 College and higher430 (10.1)503 (27.7)659 (11.9)274 (52.9)
Rural residence, n (%)<.001<.001
 No1285 (30.3)1087 (59.9)2000 (36.1)372 (71.8)
 Yes2962 (69.7)729 (40.1)3545 (63.9)146 (28.2)
Marital status, n (%)<.001.10
 Unmarried353 (8.3)89 (4.9)414 (7.5)28 (5.4)
 Married3894 (91.7)1727 (95.1)5131 (92.5)490 (94.6)
Health status, n (%)<.001<.001
 Excellent197 (4.6)44 (2.4)232 (4.2)9 (1.7)
 Very good724 (17.0)197 (10.8)888 (16.0)33 (6.4)
 Good2331 (54.9)980 (54.0)3048 (55.0)263 (50.8)
 Fair468 (11.0)309 (17.0)663 (12.0)114 (22.0)
 Poor527 (12.4)286 (15.7)714 (12.9)99 (19.1)
Social activity, n (%)<.001<.001
 No2142 (50.4)668 (36.8)2710 (48.9)100 (19.3)
 Yes2105 (49.6)1148 (63.2)2835 (51.1)418 (80.7)
Employment status, n (%)<.001.29
 Not employed1024 (24.1)515 (28.4)1418 (25.6)121 (23.4)
 Employed3223 (75.9)1301 (71.6)4127 (74.4)397 (76.6)
General cognition score (0-21), median (IQR)12.5 (9.5-14.5)14 (12-15.5)<.00112.5 (10-14.5)15.5 (14.5-16.5)<.001
Household consumption per capita, n (%)<.001<.001
Quartile 11267 (29.8)250 (13.8)1484 (26.8)33 (6.4)
Quartile 21134 (26.7)382 (21.0)1438 (25.9)78 (15.1)
Quartile 31022 (24.1)493 (27.1)1377 (24.8)138 (26.6)
Quartile 4824 (19.4)691 (38.1)1246 (22.5)269 (51.9)

Bivariate Correlations Regarding the Digital Divide

The correlation matrix presented in Table 2 delineates the relationships among broadband access, internet use, and general cognition at 3 distinct time points. The findings demonstrate moderate stability within each construct over time, with autocorrelation coefficients ranging from 0.30 to 0.62. Conversely, cross-construct correlations were consistently weaker, typically below 0.40, thereby providing evidence of adequate discriminant validity among the constructs. This pattern of associations indicates that the 3 constructs may be validly treated as separate latent variables in longitudinal modeling, such as latent growth curve analyses.

Table 2. Bivariate correlations (Spearman r and 2-tailed P value)a.
VariableBroadband accessInternet useGeneral cognition
T1T2T3T1T2T3T1T2T3
Broadband access at T1
r10.450.340.350.310.330.210.220.23
P valueb<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001
Broadband access at T2
r0.4510.480.240.300.360.180.210.22
P value<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001
Broadband access at T3
r0.340.4810.190.230.380.180.210.21
P value<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001
Internet use at T1
r0.350.240.1910.440.300.190.190.20
P value<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001
Internet use at T2
r0.310.300.230.4410.400.220.230.24
P value<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001
Internet use at T3
r0.330.360.380.300.4010.310.330.34
P value<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001
General cognition at T1
r0.210.180.180.190.220.3110.580.59
P value<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001
General cognition at T2
r0.220.210.210.190.230.330.5810.62
P value<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001
General cognition at T3
r0.230.220.210.200.240.340.590.621
P value<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001

aT1 to T3 refer to assessment time points 1 (2015), 2 (2018), and 3 (2020).

bNot applicable.

Conditional Latent Growth Curve Models for Each Element of the Digital Divide

The fit indexes presented in Table 3 strongly support the measurement models for each domain. Overall, these results indicate that the latent construct representations were adequate over time, confirming the validity of the developmental trajectories studied.

Table 4 shows that sociodemographic factors influenced initial levels and changes over time in broadband access, internet use, and cognitive function. Older age correlated with lower baseline levels (β=–0.327 to –0.144) and slower growth in internet use (β=–0.356) and general cognition (β=–0.151). Male individuals reported slightly less broadband access (β=–0.032) but higher baseline internet use and general cognition (β=0.107), with steeper declines over time (β=–0.152 and –0.160). Higher educational level boosted initial general cognition (β=0.518) but predicted slower growth in internet use (β=–0.332) and slightly faster cognitive gains (β=0.123). Rural residents started lower (eg, broadband; β=–0.220) but showed accelerated growth in broadband access (β=0.170) and internet use (β=0.202). Health status and social activity predicted higher levels of digital inclusion early on. For example, at T2, better health status was associated with greater broadband access (β=0.066), increased internet use (β=0.081), and higher general cognition scores (β=0.039). Social activity demonstrated a stronger link specifically with internet use (β=0.122). By T3, these effects were weakened. Employment status reduced broadband access (β=–0.062 to –0.041 across waves) but had minimal impact on internet use and a small positive association with general cognition (β=0.034 at T3).

Table 3. Model fit indexes for conditional latent growth curve models.
VariableChi-square (df)CFIaTLIbRMSEAc
Broadband access93.0 (24)0.9730.9970.020
Internet use115.3 (24)0.9310.9910.024
General cognition107.6 (24)0.9910.9830.025

aCFI: comparative fit index.

bTLI: Tucker-Lewis index.

cRMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.

Table 4. Conditional latent growth curve models (N=6063).
CovariateBroadband access, βInternet use, βGeneral cognition, β
Time-invariant covariates ~ latent intercept
Log (age)a–0.327b–0.322b–0.144b
Male sex–0.0320.107b0.107b
Educational level0.240b0.457b0.518b
Rural residence–0.220b–0.185b–0.144b
Marital status0.049c–0.0080.033d
Log (household consumption)0.205b0.213b0.060b
Time-invariant covariates ~ latent slope
Log (age)–0.034–0.356b–0.151c
Male sex–0.008–0.152c–0.160b
Educational level–0.042–0.332b0.123d
Rural residence0.170b0.202b0.090
Marital status–0.0180.027–0.025
Log (household consumption)–0.091b–0.179b–0.013
Time-varying covariates ~ observed outcomes
Self-rated health status
 T1e0.0370.073c0.046b
 T2f0.066b0.081b0.039b
 T3g0.0160.0060.028c
Social activity
 T10.034d0.117b0.030b
 T20.074b0.122b0.038b
 T30.0200.109b0.027b
Employment status
 T1–0.062b–0.0030.007
 T2–0.073b–0.0140.013
 T3–0.041–0.0190.034b

aLog-transformed using the natural logarithm (base e).

bP<.001.

cP<.01.

dP<.05.

eT1: 2015.

fT2: 2018.

gT3: 2020.

PP-LGCM Model for the Digital Divide

The PP-LGCM model demonstrated an excellent fit (χ297=335.1; P<.001; CFI=0.976; TLI=0.991; RMSEA=0.020; SRMR=0.026). This finding revealed a significant mediating pathway connecting broadband access to cognitive function through internet use, as illustrated in Table 5 and Figure 3. Consistent with our hypothesized cascade model, baseline broadband access strongly predicted initial internet use (β=0.453; P<.001), and increases in broadband access over time forecasted steeper growth in internet use (β=0.625; P<.001). In turn, higher baseline internet use was associated with better initial cognition (β=0.470; P<.001), and greater increases in use were associated with slower cognitive decline (β=0.444; P=.006). Although older age, lower educational level, and rural residence were associated with lower initial digital engagement, rural participants exhibited significantly faster adoption rates (broadband slope: β=0.163; internet slope: β=0.102; P=.10), suggesting a partial narrowing of the use gap. Educational level boosted broadband access (β=0.238), internet use (β=0.337), and general cognition (β=0.299; P<.001 in all cases); and older age negatively affected broadband access (β=–0.324) and internet use (β=–0.167; P<.001 in both cases) and slowed internet use growth (β=–0.338; P<.001), with no significant impact on cognitive slope. Men reported higher baseline internet use (β=0.119; P<.001) and general cognition (β=0.071; P<.001), although they experienced steeper declines in internet use over time (β=–0.149; P=.02). Household consumption predicted higher baseline broadband access (β=0.203) and internet use (β=0.116; P<.001 in both cases) but was negatively related to their slopes. Social activity had a consistent association with internet use, with β coefficients of 0.117 at T1, 0.122 at T2, and 0.109 at T3. Furthermore, it positively predicted cognitive function (β=0.037 at T1, β=0.040 at T2, and β=0.035 at T3). Health status demonstrated a positive relationship with both internet use and cognition at T1 and T2; however, this association did not persist at T3. Employment displayed a negative correlation with broadband access across all waves (β=–0.062 at T1, β=–0.073 at T2, and β=–0.041 at T3), indicating lower adoption rates among employed individuals. Its influence on cognition remained negligible.

Table 5. Parallel-process latent growth curve model (N=6063).
Outcome and predictorβ (SE; 95% CI)P value
Internet use intercept<.001
Broadband access intercept0.453 (0.022; 0.410 to 0.496)
Internet use slope<.001
Broadband access slope0.625 (0.067; 0.494 to 0.756)
General cognition intercept<.001
Internet use intercept0.470 (0.027; 0.417 to 0.523)
General cognition slope.006
Internet use slope0.444 (0.161; 0.128 to 0.760).006
Broadband access intercept
Log (age)a–0.324 (0.020; –0.363 to –0.285)<.001
Male sex–0.032 (0.017; –0.065 to 0.001).07
Educational level0.238 (0.018; 0.203 to 0.273)<.001
Rural residence–0.218 (0.018; –0.253 to 0.183)<.001
Marital status0.049 (0.018; 0.014 to 0.084).008
Log (household consumption)0.203 (0.017; 0.170 to 0.236)<.001
Broadband access slope
Log (age)–0.033 (0.030; –0.092 to 0.026).27
Male sex–0.008 (0.028; –0.063 to 0.047).78
Educational level–0.040 (0.028; –0.095 to 0.015).15
Rural residence0.163 (0.028; 0.108 to 0.218)<.001
Marital status–0.018 (0.028; –0.073 to 0.037).51
Log (household consumption)–0.087 (0.026; –0.138 to –0.036).001
Internet use intercept
Log (age)–0.167 (0.032; –0.229 to –0.105)<.001
Male sex0.119 (0.025; 0.070 to 0.168)<.001
Educational level0.337 (0.029; 0.280 to 0.394)<.001
Rural residence–0.081 (0.026; –0.132 to –0.030).001
Marital status–0.030 (0.028; –0.085 to 0.025).28
Log (household consumption)0.116 (0.025; 0.067 to 0.165)<.001
Internet use slope
Log (age)–0.338 (0.073; –0.481 to –0.195)<.001
Male sex–0.149 (0.061; –0.269 to –0.029).02
Educational level–0.309 (0.070; –0.446 to –0.172)<.001
Rural residence0.102 (0.062; –0.019 to 0.223).10
Marital status0.038 (0.064; –0.087 to 0.163).55
Log (household consumption)–0.126 (0.061; –0.246 to –0.006).04
General cognition intercept
Log (age)–0.021 (0.022; –0.064 to 0.022).33
Male sex0.071 (0.018; 0.036 to 0.106)<.001
Educational level0.299 (0.023; 0.254 to 0.344)<.001
Rural residence–0.037 (0.019; –0.074 to 0.000).046
Marital status0.043 (0.018; 0.008 to 0.078).01
Log (household consumption)–0.046 (0.018; –0.081 to –0.011).01
General cognition slope
Log (age)0.006 (0.094; –0.178 to 0.190).95
Male sex–0.091 (0.066; –0.220 to 0.038).17
Educational level0.269 (0.087; 0.098 to 0.440).002
Rural residence0.003 (0.061; –0.117 to 0.123).96
Marital status–0.040 (0.057; –0.152 to 0.072).48
Log (household consumption)0.062 (0.066; –0.067 to 0.191).35
Broadband access at T1b
Health status0.037 (0.019; 0.000 to 0.074).06
Social activity0.034 (0.017; 0.001 to 0.067).049
Employment status–0.062 (0.019; –0.099 to –0.025).001
Broadband access at T2c
Health status0.066 (0.019; 0.029 to 0.103)<.001
Social activity0.074 (0.016; 0.043 to 0.105)<.001
Employment status–0.073 (0.020; –0.112 to –0.034)<.001
Broadband access at T3d
Health status0.016 (0.019; –0.021 to 0.053).40
Social activity0.020 (0.019; –0.017 to 0.057).23
Employment status–0.041 (0.021; –0.082 to 0.000).05
Internet use at T1
Health status0.073 (0.026; 0.022 to 0.124).006
Social activity0.117 (0.024; 0.070 to 0.164)<.001
Employment status–0.003 (0.037; –0.076 to 0.070).93
Internet use at T2
Health status0.081 (0.023; 0.036 to 0.126)<.001
Social activity0.122 (0.019; 0.085 to 0.159)<.001
Employment status–0.014 (0.028; –0.069 to 0.041).56
Internet use at T3
Health status0.006 (0.019; –0.031 to 0.043).75
Social activity0.109 (0.015; 0.080 to 0.138)<.001
Employment status–0.019 (0.022; –0.062 to 0.024).33
General cognition at T1
Health status0.052 (0.013; 0.027 to 0.077)<.001
Social activity0.037 (0.012; 0.013 to 0.061).002
Employment status0.006 (0.015; –0.023 to 0.035).67
General cognition at T2
Health status0.043 (0.013; 0.018 to 0.068).001
Social activity0.040 (0.012; 0.016 to 0.064)<.001
Employment status0.006 (0.017; –0.027 to 0.039).67
General cognition at T3
Health status0.023 (0.013; –0.002 to 0.048).07
Social activity0.035 (0.012; 0.011 to 0.059).003
Employment status0.028 (0.015; –0.001 to 0.057).046

aLog-transformed using the natural logarithm (base e).

bT1: 2015.

cT2: 2018.

dT3: 2020.

Figure 3. Digital divide in cognitive function using parallel-process latent growth curve modeling. For latent variables, solid lines denote intercept relationships, while dashed lines represent slope relationships. Numerical values indicate loadings from latent variables to items. For regressions of sociodemographic variables, solid lines denote statistically significant paths with |β| ≥0.20; dotted lines denote statistically significant paths with |β| <0.20; nonsignificant paths are omitted. All the coefficients are standardized. ***P<.001; **P<.01; *P<.05; BAI: broadband access intercept; BAS: broadband access slope; GCI: general cognition intercept; GCS: general cognition slope; IUI: internet use intercept; IUS: internet use slope; T1: 2015; T2: 2018; T3: 2020.

Principal Results

The findings of this study demonstrated that the cascading potential influence of household broadband access predicts internet use and subsequent codevelopment of this prediction, both of which are associated with a possible slower decline in cognitive trajectories among middle-aged and older Chinese adults. The PP-LGCM model confirmed the 3-level digital divide framework and extends the perspective from static views to a process-based approach, emphasizing how disparities in infrastructure could influence actual internet use and cognitive aging through codevelopmental pathways. Our findings substantially enhance the discussion of digital inclusion as a vital component of healthy aging, emphasizing the importance of not only physical access but also creating supportive environments that enable older adults to thrive.

This aligns with the first progress report of the United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing, which underscores the vital role of digital engagement in sustaining intrinsic capacity in later life [26]. The report cautions that, despite investments in connectivity, the resources for engagement remain insufficient, especially among older adults in low- and middle-income countries. Van Dijk [41] similarly argues that access alone is insufficient; individuals require motivation, digital skills, and supportive opportunities to translate connectivity into benefit. Our results support this view: China’s infrastructure expansion from 2015 to 2020 narrowed the rural-urban gap in broadband access, yet this did not translate into comparable gains in internet use or cognitive outcomes among rural respondents. Early advantages among urban and highly educated individuals likely reflect the Matthew effect [42,43], in which initial resources accumulate over time. However, what appears to be a cumulative advantage may stem from persistent conversion gaps [44,45]: the failure to translate access into meaningful use, especially in mid to late life, when cognitive resilience is more vulnerable [46,47].

Moreover, the association between internet use and cognitive resilience is plausibly mediated by neurocognitive mechanisms aligned with the cognitive reserve hypothesis [48,49]. Internet use is positively associated with cognitive stimulation and cognitive reserve [50,51]. Activities such as seeking health information, comparing services, or navigating digital interfaces engage executive functions, working memory, and attention [52,53]. Social relationship factors are correlated with cognitive function and its decline, and engaging in social activities via calls or messaging may reduce social isolation, which is identified as a risk factor for cognitive decline [54,55]. The internet offers problem-solving opportunities through online tasks such as navigating websites, managing banking, or learning, which demand cognitive effort and decision-making, helping maintain mental agility [56] and thereby stimulating cognitive abilities [57]. Although our binary measure of internet use limits granularity, the findings are consistent with those of research linking online behaviors to delayed recall and processing speed [58], indicating that continuous engagement activates these neural pathways [59].

Structural inequalities shape both digital and cognitive trajectories [60]. Age is a predictor of disadvantage [23,43]: older adults tend to have less broadband access, lower internet use, and slower progress in these domains. Educational level functions as a lifelong enabler, increasing broadband access, internet use, and cognitive capacity [60]. Men in this study reported higher initial levels of internet use and general cognition. However, there is a significant decline in internet use over time, rather than in cognitive function, aligning with previous research [18,61], some of which is potentially attributable to cohort attrition in men. Household consumption predicted higher initial digital engagement but also correlated with slower growth, implying saturation among more advantaged individuals [22]. Self-rated health and social activity were associated with better outcomes in the initial wave but lost significance in later waves, potentially due to survivor bias or the stabilization of digital habits [32]. Employment status consistently showed a negative relationship with broadband access across waves, likely reflecting work-related constraints or measurement limitations.

While our PP-LGCM model supports a directional cascade from access to use to general cognition, we acknowledge the plausibility of reverse causation: individuals with higher baseline cognitive capacity may be more likely to adopt and sustain internet use [32]. Future studies using cross-lagged panel models or instrumental variables are recommended to further elucidate the causal direction.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, attrition (6712/12,775, 52.5%) may introduce bias if those lost to follow-up were disproportionately cognitively impaired or digitally excluded. Second, our binary measures of internet use could not distinguish between passive (eg, scrolling) and cognitively stimulating activities (eg, learning and problem-solving)—a key nuance for future research. Third, although the Mini-Mental State Examination cognitive composite is widely used in surveys among large aging populations, it has limited ceiling effects in high-functioning individuals, sensitivity to early or specific decline, and possible cultural or educational biases in literacy or numeracy items [62,63].

Conclusions

This study provides longitudinal evidence that internet use mediates the association between broadband access and general cognition among middle-aged and older Chinese adults. The growth trajectory in broadband access predicted increased internet use, which in turn predicted slower cognitive decline. These results argue for integrating digital literacy and socially engaging online opportunities into public health strategies for healthy aging.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study research team and all respondents for their contribution.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the PhD Research Startup Foundation of Inner Mongolia Medical University (YKD2024BSQD024).

Data Availability

The datasets generated or analyzed during this study are available on the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study website [36].

Authors' Contributions

Conceptualization: LC (lead)

Data curation: FC

Formal analysis: LC (lead), FC (supporting)

Funding acquisition: LC

Methodology: LC

Project administration: LC (lead), FC (supporting)

Resources: FC

Supervision: LC

Validation: LC

Visualization: FC (lead), LC (supporting)

Writing—original draft: FC (lead), LC (supporting)

Writing—review and editing: LC, FC (equal)

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

  1. Dutton WH, Graham M, editors. Society and the Internet: How Networks of Information and Communication Are Changing Our Lives. Oxford University Press; 2019. ISBN: 9780198843498
  2. ITU measuring digital development – facts and figures 2024. ITU. 2024. URL: https://www.itu.int/hub/publication/d-ind-ict_mdd-2024-4 [Accessed 2026-03-09]
  3. van Dijk J, Hacker K. The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Inf Soc. Sep 2003;19(4):315-326. [CrossRef]
  4. Falling through the net: defining the digital divide. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 1999. URL: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html [Accessed 2026-03-09]
  5. van Deursen AJ, van Dijk JA. The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society. Feb 2019;21(2):354-375. [CrossRef]
  6. Wei KK, Teo HH, Chan HC, Tan BCY. Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research. Mar 2011;22(1):170-187. [CrossRef]
  7. Hong YA, Zhou Z, Fang Y, Shi L. The digital divide and health disparities in China: evidence from a national survey and policy implications. J Med Internet Res. Sep 11, 2017;19(9):e317. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Yang R, Gao S, Jiang Y. Digital divide as a determinant of health in the U.S. older adults: prevalence, trends, and risk factors. BMC Geriatr. Dec 21, 2024;24(1):1027. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Pais R, Ruano L, P Carvalho O, Barros H. Global cognitive impairment prevalence and incidence in community dwelling older adults-a systematic review. Geriatrics (Basel). Oct 27, 2020;5(4):84. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Singh-Manoux A, Kivimaki M, Glymour MM, et al. Timing of onset of cognitive decline: results from Whitehall II prospective cohort study. BMJ. Jan 5, 2012;344:d7622. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Prince MJ, Wu F, Guo Y, et al. The burden of disease in older people and implications for health policy and practice. Lancet. Feb 7, 2015;385(9967):549-562. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Bradburn S, Murgatroyd C, Ray N. Neuroinflammation in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. Mar 2019;50:1-8. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Huynh QL, Negishi K, Blizzard L, et al. Mild cognitive impairment predicts death and readmission within 30 days of discharge for heart failure. Int J Cardiol. Oct 15, 2016;221:212-217. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Guo S, Zheng XY. New evidence of trends in cognitive function among middle-aged and older adults in China, 2011-2018: an age-period-cohort analysis. BMC Geriatr. Aug 21, 2023;23(1):498. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Chen X, Giles J, Yao Y, et al. The path to healthy ageing in China: a Peking University–Lancet Commission. The Lancet. Dec 2022;400(10367):1967-2006. [CrossRef]
  16. Ding D, Zhao Q, Guo Q, et al. Prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in an urban community in China: a cross‐sectional analysis of the Shanghai Aging Study. Alzheimers Dement. Mar 2015;11(3):300. [CrossRef]
  17. Ding D, Zhao Q, Guo Q, et al. Progression and predictors of mild cognitive impairment in Chinese elderly: a prospective follow‐up in the Shanghai Aging Study. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). Jan 2016;4(1):28-36. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Zeng Y, Feng Q, Hesketh T, Christensen K, Vaupel JW. Survival, disabilities in activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning among the oldest-old in China: a cohort study. The Lancet. Apr 2017;389(10079):1619-1629. [CrossRef]
  19. Wang Z, Chen C, Guo B, Yu Z, Zhou X. Internet plus in China. IT Prof. 2016;18(3):5-8. [CrossRef]
  20. The 55th statistical report on internet development in china. China Internet Network Information Center. 2025. URL: https://www.cnnic.net.cn/n4/2025/0117/c88-11229.html [Accessed 2025-03-09]
  21. Mubarak F, Suomi R. Elderly forgotten? Digital exclusion in the information age and the rising grey digital divide. Inquiry. 2022;59:469580221096272. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Ackermann K, Awaworyi Churchill S, Smyth R. Broadband internet and cognitive functioning. Economic Record. Dec 2023;99(327):536-563. [CrossRef]
  23. Cao L, Chongsuvivatwong V, McNeil EB. The sociodemographic digital divide in mobile health app use among clients at outpatient departments in inner Mongolia, China: cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Hum Factors. May 19, 2022;9(2):e36962. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Li Y, Liu C, Sun J, Zhang J, Li X, Zhang Z. The digital divide and cognitive disparities among older adults: community-based cohort study in China. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e59684. [CrossRef]
  25. UN decade of healthy ageing: plan of action 2021-2030. World Health Organization. URL: https:/​/cdn.​who.int/​media/​docs/​default-source/​decade-of-healthy-ageing/​decade-proposal-final-apr2020-en.​pdf?sfvrsn=b4b75ebc_28 [Accessed 2026-03-09]
  26. Progress report on the United Nations decade of healthy ageing, 2021-2023. World Health Organization. 2023. URL: https:/​/www.​who.int/​publications/​i/​item/​9789240079694#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20report%20is%20to%3A%20assess,and%20scale%20up%20interventions%20to%20ensure%20healthy%20ageing [Accessed 2026-03-09]
  27. World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization. 2015. URL: https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/5174879e-b0dc-43fc-b3a8-b1db31c51d4c/content [Accessed 2026-03-09]
  28. World development report 2016: digital dividends. World Bank Group. 2016. URL: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016 [Accessed 2026-03-09]
  29. World social report 2023: leaving no one behind in an ageing world. United Nations. 2023. URL: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/world-social-report/2023-2.html [Accessed 2026-03-09]
  30. Rajczyk JI, Burke JF, Xu WY, Wing JJ. Broadband availability and Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias prevalence in central Appalachia. J Soc Serv Res. Jan 19, 2026:1-10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Kamin ST, Lang FR. Internet use and cognitive functioning in late adulthood: longitudinal findings from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. Feb 14, 2020;75(3):534-539. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  32. Kim YK, Han SH. Internet use and cognitive functioning in later life: focus on asymmetric effects and contextual factors. Gerontologist. Mar 28, 2022;62(3):425-435. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Yu X, Mu A, Wu X, Zhou L. Impact of internet use on cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults in China: longitudinal observational study. J Med Internet Res. Jan 24, 2022;24(1):e25760. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Stern Y. Cognitive reserve. Neuropsychologia. Aug 2009;47(10):2015-2028. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  35. Zhao Y, Hu Y, Smith JP, Strauss J, Yang G. Cohort profile: the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). Int J Epidemiol. Feb 2014;43(1):61-68. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  36. Datasets of CHARLS. CHARLS. URL: https://charls.charlsdata.com/pages/data/111/zh-cn.html [Accessed 2025-11-11]
  37. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. Nov 1975;12(3):189-198. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  38. Scheerder A, van Deursen A, van Dijk J. Determinants of internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telemat Inform. Dec 2017;34(8):1607-1624. [CrossRef]
  39. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 4th ed. The Guilford Press; 2016:534.
  40. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. Jan 1999;6(1):1-55. [CrossRef]
  41. van Dijk J. The Digital Divide. Polity; 2020. ISBN: 9781509534449
  42. Dannefer D. Cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the life course: cross-fertilizing age and social science theory. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. Nov 2003;58(6):S327-S337. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  43. Li S, Ouyang Y, Hu M. Ten-year trends of the digital divides and its effect on healthy aging among older adults in China from 2011 to 2020. NPJ Digit Med. Nov 21, 2025;8(1):710. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  44. van Dijk JAGM. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics (Amst). Aug 2006;34(4-5):221-235. [CrossRef]
  45. van Deursen A, Helsper EJ, Eynon R, van Dijk JAGM. The compoundness and sequentiality of digital inequality. Int J Commun. 2017;11:452-473. URL: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5739 [Accessed 2025-11-11]
  46. Livingston G, Huntley J, Sommerlad A, et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission. The Lancet. Aug 2020;396(10248):413-446. [CrossRef]
  47. Ngandu T, Lehtisalo J, Solomon A, et al. A 2 year multidomain intervention of diet, exercise, cognitive training, and vascular risk monitoring versus control to prevent cognitive decline in at-risk elderly people (FINGER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. Jun 6, 2015;385(9984):2255-2263. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  48. Liang C, Subramaniam P, Mohd Ridzwan Goh NS, Kok Wai T, Moustafa AA. Digital device use, risk of cognitive impairment, and cognition in healthy older adults: the role of cognitive reserve. Healthcare (Basel). Oct 25, 2023;11(21):2822. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Savarimuthu A, Ponniah RJ. Cognition and cognitive reserve. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. Jun 2024;58(2):483-501. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  50. Deng Y, Liu L, Yang Q, Yu T. The impact of internet use on cognitive function in older adults: based on the cognitive reserve hypothesis. J Health Psychol. Oct 7, 2025:13591053251371788. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  51. Chai Y, Xian G, Wang M, Guo L, Luo S. Aging wisely: the impact of internet use on older adults’ mental health. J Affect Disord. Nov 1, 2024;364:139-145. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  52. Small GW, Lee J, Kaufman A, et al. Brain health consequences of digital technology use. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. Jun 2020;22(2):179-187. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  53. Small GW, Moody TD, Siddarth P, Bookheimer SY. Your brain on Google: patterns of cerebral activation during internet searching. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. Feb 2009;17(2):116-126. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  54. Duffner L, Deckers K, van Boxtel MPJ, de Vugt M, Köhler S. Social relationship factors, cognitive activity engagement and cognitive decline across 25 years in the Maastricht Ageing Study. Alzheimers Dement. Dec 2023;19(S22):19. [CrossRef]
  55. Ding X, Yuan L, Zhou Y. Internet access and older adults’ health: evidence from China. China Economic Review. Dec 2023;82:102047. [CrossRef]
  56. Zheng RZ, Hill RD, Gardner MK. Engaging Older Adults with Modern Technology: Internet Use and Information Access Needs. IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2013. [CrossRef]
  57. Benge JF, Scullin MK. A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging. Nat Hum Behav. Jul 2025;9(7):1405-1419. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  58. Xavier AJ, d’Orsi E, de Oliveira CM, et al. English longitudinal study of aging: can internet/e-mail use reduce cognitive decline? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. Sep 2014;69(9):1117-1121. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Firth J, Torous J, Stubbs B, et al. The “online brain”: how the internet may be changing our cognition. World Psychiatry. Jun 2019;18(2):119-129. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  60. Chen B, Yang C, Ren S, Li P, Zhao J. Relationship between internet use and cognitive function among middle-aged and older Chinese adults: 5-year longitudinal study. J Med Internet Res. Dec 2, 2024;26:e57301. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  61. Ihle A, Bavelier D, Maurer J, Oris M, Kliegel M. Internet use in old age predicts smaller cognitive decline only in men. Sci Rep. Jun 2, 2020;10(1):8969. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  62. Scott J, Mayo AM. Instruments for detection and screening of cognitive impairment for older adults in primary care settings: a review. Geriatr Nurs (Lond). May 2018;39(3):323-329. [CrossRef]
  63. Nielsen TR. Cognitive assessment in culturally, linguistically, and educationally diverse older populations in Europe. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2022;37:15333175221117006. [CrossRef] [Medline]


CFI: comparative fit index
CHARLS: China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study
PP-LGCM: parallel-process latent growth curve modeling
RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation
SRMR: standardized root mean square residual
TLI: Tucker-Lewis index


Edited by Frank Puga; submitted 14.Apr.2025; peer-reviewed by Cuiping Liu, Mengting Li, Prasongchai Setthasuravich; final revised version received 17.Jan.2026; accepted 19.Feb.2026; published 24.Mar.2026.

Copyright

© Fangfang Cheng, Li Cao. Originally published in JMIR Aging (https://aging.jmir.org), 24.Mar.2026.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Aging, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://aging.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.