Skip to main content

Older Adults Engaging in Online Dating: What Gerontological Nurses Should Know

Rachel K. Wion ; Susan J. Loeb (2015) — Journal of Gerontological Nursing

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools


              
              

Transparency

Evidence and review status

This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

Source basis
Downloaded PDF
Source updates
No notice found at last check
AI-generated page content
Yes
Automated checks
Passed
Administrative approval
Yes
Human content review
Not recorded
Subject-matter-expert review
Not recorded
How this was prepared
Source basis

RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.

  • PDF added to RSRC:
Source updates

No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.

  • Last source-status attempt:
AI-generated page content

AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.

  • Document analysis recorded:
  • Synopsis generation recorded:
  • Page record updated:
Automated checks

The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.

  • Checks completed:
View passed checks (3)
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
  • English-source lexical grounding check
Administrative approval

An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.

  • Approved for public display:
Human content review

No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.

Subject-matter-expert review

RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.

Review-state definitions
Found a possible error? Request a correction.

Synopsis

The publication reviews what is known about older adults who use online dating and what gerontological nurses should know to support safety and well‑being. Its stated purpose is to examine the body of evidence on online dating among older adults, identify clinical implications for nurses assessing dating practices in older patients, and highlight safety considerations. The authors draw on cross‑sectional and qualitative studies, plus a synthesis of prior literature, to describe why older adults seek partners, how online dating is used in later life, and what risks accompany these practices. Across the reviewed studies, a subset of older adults actively pursues dating online, with some markets targeting individuals 50 and older. Evidence cited includes that a notable minority of unmarried adults aged roughly 57–85 report being in dating relationships, and that online venues can help overcome geographic constraints and social isolation. However, the literature also documents risks specific to online dating in later life, including financial scams, emotional and physical abuse, sexual risk, and privacy/data‑breach concerns. Several studies describe romance scams in which perpetrators solicit money or manipulate victims; others highlight forms of abuse that may co‑occur with dating relationships formed online. The authors emphasize that these risks can be present even when relationships seem meaningful or enduring. The article concludes that gerontological nurses are well positioned to screen for dating activities in older patients, educate about safer online dating practices, and connect patients to relevant resources. It notes that the existing evidence base is largely limited to cross‑sectional or qualitative designs (level III), and implies a need for further rigor in research and in the development of practical, evidence‑based interventions to promote safety in online dating for older adults.

Identified Gaps

Research on intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and financial abuse among older adults who are dating is sparse. National prevention and education campaigns on intimate partner or dating violence generally do not focus on this age group. Little research has examined the possible and actual risks faced by older adults using online dating websites.

Methods

This narrative literature review examined evidence on adults aged 50 and older who engage in online dating and outlined clinical implications for gerontological nurses. The authors rated included studies using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice scale. The reviewed studies were cross-sectional or qualitative, with samples and findings drawn from several countries.

Limitations

The review reports that all included studies were Level III evidence because they used cross-sectional or qualitative designs. Most studies were rated good quality, but some were low quality and only one was high quality. This limits causal inference and indicates that the evidence base on older adults' online dating risks remains methodologically limited.

Future Work

Researchers should develop and rigorously test intervention strategies that promote the safety of older adults who meet partners through electronic dating websites.

See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.