Background: Technology use has become the most critical approach to maintaining social connectedness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Older adults (aged >65 years) are perceived as the most physiologically susceptible population to developing COVID-19 and are at risk of secondary mental health challenges related to the social isolation that has been imposed by virus containment strategies. To mitigate concerns regarding sampling bias, we analyzed a random sample of older adults to understand the uptake and acceptance of technologies that support socialization during the pandemic. Objective: We aimed to conduct a population-based assessment of the barriers and facilitators to engaging in the use of technology for web-based socialization among older adults in the Canadian province of British Columbia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, population-based, regionally representative survey by using the random-digit dialing method to reach participants aged >65 years who live in British Columbia. Data were analyzed using SPSS (IBM Corporation), and open-text responses were analyzed via thematic analysis. Results: Respondents included 400 older adults aged an average of 72 years, and 63.7% (n=255) of respondents were female. Most respondents (n=358, 89.5%) were aware of how to use technology to connect with others, and slightly more than half of the respondents (n=224, 56%) reported that, since the beginning of the pandemic, they used technology differently to connect with others during the pandemic. Additionally, 55.9% (n=223) of respondents reported that they adopted new technology since the beginning of the pandemic. Older adults reported the following key barriers to using technology: (1) a lack of access (including finance-, knowledge-, and age-related issues); (2) a lack of interest (including a preference for telephones and a general lack of interest in computers); and (3) physical barriers (resultant of cognitive impairments, stroke, and arthritis). Older adults also reported the following facilitators: (1) a knowledge of technologies (from self-teaching or external courses); (2) reliance on others (family, friends, and general internet searches); (3) technology accessibility (including appropriate environments, user-friendly technology, and clear instructions); and (4) social motivation (everyone else is doing it). Conclusions: Much data on older adults’ use of technology are limited by sampling biases, but this study, which used a random sampling method, demonstrated that older adults used technology to mitigate social isolation during the pandemic. Web-based socialization is the most promising method for mitigating potential mental health effects that are related to virus containment strategies. Providing telephone training; creating task lists; and implementing the facilitators described by participants, such as facilitated socialization activities, are important strategies for addressing barriers, and these strategies can be implemented during and beyond the pandemic to bolster the mental health needs of older adults.

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full‐text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.Results: We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full‐text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co‐design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.Conclusions: Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.Patient or Public Contribution: Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co‐authors of this manuscript.