The protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022370044). The systematic review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence [34].

Study objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to explore published studies describing how older adults aging in place have used ICT (information and communication technology) for social interaction at home to analyse and systematize their experienced barriers in regards such technologies. The research question to answer the study objectives is What are the barriers experienced by older adults ageing in place in using ICT for social interaction?

Specific objectives of the review to answer the research question are:

Identify the characteristics of social interaction technologies that have produced experienced barriers for older adults.

Explore the barriers experienced by older adults in the use of social interaction technologies.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the identified studies are described in Table 1.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteriaTypes of studies

This review will assess peer-reviewed qualitative studies including, but not limited to, methodologies and designs related to phenomenology, hermeneutics, grounded theory, ethnography, and action research. Qualitative results from mixed method studies will also be included.

Search strategy

The search strategy aims to locate published and peer-reviewed studies. An initial limited search of CINAHL (via EBSCO, see Appendix 1) was undertaken to identify articles on the topic. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles will be used to develop a full search strategy for CINAHL via EBSCO.

Initial keywords in different forms to be used will be “elder”, “old’’, “senior”, “aged”, “home residing”, “independent living”, “living community”, “community dwelling”, “home environment”, “home-based”, “communication technology”, “digital communication”, “ICT”, “information and communication technology”, “connectivity”, “real-time communication”, “user-generated content”, “collaboration tools”, “virtual and augmented reality, “experiences”, “barrier”, “obstacle”, “non-use”, “non-take-up”, “difficult”, “social inclusion”, “social isolation”, “social interaction”, “social networking”, “loneliness”.

The search strategy, including all identified keywords and index terms, will be adapted for each included information source. The references of all studies selected for critical appraisal will be screened for additional data.

The databases to be searched include Academic Search Complete, CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane CENTRAL, ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), MedicLatina, MEDLINE (PubMed), ProQuest, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), Science Direct, Social Science Citation Index, Scopus, Web of science (ISI) and IEEE Xplore.

Study selection

Following the search, all identified citations will be collated and uploaded into Mendeley (Mendeley Ltd., Elsevier, Netherlands) and duplicates will be removed. Titles and abstracts will then be screened by two independent reviewers using Rayyan–Intelligent Systematic Review [36], for assessment against the inclusion criteria. Potentially relevant studies will be retrieved in full, and their citation details imported into the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI; Adelaide, Australia) [37].

The selected full texts will be assessed in detail towards the inclusion criteria by pairs of reviewers. The grounds for excluding full texts will be recorded and reported in the systematic review. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers at any stage of the selection process will be resolved through discussion or by engaging a third reviewer. The results of the search will be reported in full in the final systematic review and will be presented in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram [38].

Assessment of methodological quality

All eligible studies will be critically appraised by reviewer pairs to assess methodological quality by using the standard JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research [34] before undergoing data extraction and synthesis. The questions in the checklist relate to consistency in methodology, philosophical perspective, research question or objectives, data collection, data representation and analysis, representation of results, researcher position, participant voices, ethical issues, and the quality of reporting. The list helps to ensure the quality of included studies and identify possible biases. Any disagreements between the reviewers during the assessment process will be resolved through discussion, or by engaging a third reviewer. The results of critical appraisal will be reported in textual and table forms.

After critical appraisal, studies that do not meet a predetermined threshold of quality will be excluded. Studies that receive a classification of “no” or “unclear” for five or more out of the 10 questions (50% or more) in the critical appraisal checklist will be excluded. Studies classified as “no” or “uncertain” for one to five questions will be discussed in a meeting where two reviewers will determine whether these studies will be included. Any disagreements arising between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Authors of the articles will be contacted to request missing or additional data for clarification when necessary. The results of the critical evaluation will be presented in a narrative format and in a table.

In mixed studies, ensuring the methodological quality of the included research is crucial to capture participants’ voices and meanings effectively. To achieve this, the JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research will be applied. Only studies that answer “yes” to the following questions will be considered for inclusion: Q2 (Is there alignment between the research methodology and research questions or objectives?), Q3 (Is there alignment between the research methodology and data collection methods?), Q4 (Is there alignment between the research methodology and data representation and analysis?), and Q8 (Are participants and their voices adequately represented?) [34].

Data extraction

Qualitative data will be extracted from papers included in the review by two independent reviewers using the standardized data extraction tool in JBI SUMARI [37]. The data extracted will include specific details about the populations, context, culture, geographical location, study methods, and the phenomena of interest relevant to the review questions. The findings and their illustrations will be extracted and assigned a level of credibility. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers during data extraction will be resolved through discussion or by engaging a third reviewer. Authors of papers will be contacted to request missing or additional data, where required.

If at this point missing data is detected (i.e. on assessment of methodological quality or data extraction), authors of selected papers will be contacted to request missing or additional data.

Data synthesis

Qualitative research findings will be, where possible, pooled using JBI SUMARI with the meta-aggregation approach [37]. This involves the aggregation or synthesis of findings to generate a set of statements that represent that aggregation, through assembling the findings, and categorizing these findings based on similarity in meaning, based on the type of technology and the type of subgroup of participants involved (healthy, unhealthy and disabled, and the latter ones will be subcategorized according to the illnesses or disabilities). These categories will then be subjected to a synthesis to produce a single comprehensive set of synthesized findings that can be used for evidence-based practice, to guide future research or impact the user-friendliness in development of ICT products for social interaction, and according to the type or characteristics of the group/subgroup of participants (healthy/unhealthy/disabled). Where textual grouping is not possible, the findings will be presented in textual format. Only unequivocal and credible findings are included in the synthesis [34].

Assessing confidence in the findings

The final synthesized findings will be graded according to the ConQual (confidence in qualitative synthesis findings) approach for establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis and will be presented in a Summary of Findings [39]. The ConQual approach offers a means of grading the credibility and dependability of the findings of a review [39].

Dependability will be determined for each study by analyzing methodological quality appraisal (questions 1–5 of the JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research) [34]. Credibility will be assessed by the quality and evident detail of illustrations of findings by measures of unequivocal (U), credible (C), or not supported (NS) [34].

Each synthesized finding from the review will be presented, along with the type of research informing it, and scored for dependability and credibility, and given an overall ConQual score. The authors of the review will be consulted and confirmed the appraisal, extraction, and synthesis of findings. Thus, the Summary of Findings will include the major elements of the review and details on the determined ConQual score.

Included in the Summary of Findings will be the title, population, phenomena of interest, and context for the specific review. Each synthesized findings from the review will then be presented, along with the type of research informing it, with scores for dependability and credibility, and the overall ConQual score [39].