Submitted:
02 May 2025
Posted:
05 May 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Methods
Reliability and Validity
Data Analysis
Ethical Considerations
3. Results
4. Discussion
Future research and Suggestions
Limitations of the Study's
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sorrel, AL. Nepal population and housing census 2011. Cent Bur Stat. 2012;1(3):1–270.
- Rai S, Chalaune A. A Bibliography on Nepal’s Population and Housing Census and Demography. 1–21.
- Teng CE, Joo TM. Analyzing the usage of social media: A study on elderly in Malaysia. J Humanit Soc Sci. 2017;11(3):737–43.
- Haris N, Majid RA, Abdullah N, Osman R. The role of social media in supporting elderly quality daily life. Proc - 2014 3rd Int Conf User Sci Eng Exp Eng Engag i-USEr 2014. 2015;253–7.
- Karim F, Oyewande A, Abdalla LF, Chaudhry Ehsanullah R, Khan S. Social Media Use and Its Connection to Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2020;12(6).
- Ostic D, Qalati SA, Barbosa B, Shah SMM, Galvan Vela E, Herzallah AM, et al. Effects of Social Media Use on Psychological Well-Being: A Mediated Model. Front Psychol. 2021;12(June).
- Beyens I, Pouwels JL, van Driel II, Keijsers L, Valkenburg PM. The effect of social media on well-being differs from adolescent to adolescent. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2020;10(1):1–11.
- Lin YY, Huang CS. Aging in Taiwan: Building a society for active aging and aging in place. Gerontologist. 2016;56(2):176–83.
- Sharma M, Kautish S. Social Networking Sites and Their Impact on Life Satisfaction: A Case Study of Kathmandu. 2021;3(1):32–44.
- Saini N, Sangwan G, Verma M, Kohli A, Kaur M, Lakshmi PVM. Effect of Social Networking Sites on the Quality of Life of College Students: A Cross-Sectional Study from a City in North India. Sci World J. 2020;2020.
- GoN. Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. 2019 Digital Nepal Framework : Unlocking Nepal’s Growth Potential. 2019 Digit Nepal Framew Unlocking Nepal’s Growth Potential [Internet]. 2019;360. Available from: https://mocit.gov.np/application/resources/admin/uploads/source/EConsultation/EN Digital Nepal Framework V8.4 15 July 2019.
- Nakane Y, Tazaki M, Miyaoka E. Whoqol. Iryo To Shakai. 1999;9(1):123–31.
- Marzo RR, Jun Chen HW, Ahmad A, Thew HZ, Choy JS, Ng CH, et al. The evolving role of social media in enhancing quality of life: a global perspective across 10 countries. Arch Public Heal. 2024;82(1).
- Gupta S, Bashir L. Social networking usage questionnaire: Development and validation. Turkish Online J Distance Educ. 2018;19(4):214–27.
- Ali I, Danaee M, Firdaus A. Social networking sites usage & needs scale (Snsun): A new instrument for measuring social networking sites’ usage patterns and needs. J Inf Telecommun [Internet]. 2020;4(2):151–74. Available from. [CrossRef]
- Schemer C, Masur PK, Geiß S, Müller P, Schäfer S. The Impact of Internet and Social Media Use on Well-Being: A Longitudinal Analysis of Adolescents Across Nine Years. J Comput Commun. 2021;26(1):1–21.
- James DCS, Harville C. Smartphone Usage, Social Media Engagement, and Willingness to Participate in mHealth Weight Management Research Among African American Women. Heal Educ Behav. 2018;45(3):315–22. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M. Older people’s attitudes towards emerging technologies: A systematic literature review. Public Underst Sci. 2023;32(8):948–68.
- Lee L, Maher M Lou. Factors affecting the initial engagement of older adults in the use of interactive technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(6):1–22. [CrossRef]
- Bhatiasevi, V. The uses and gratifications of social media and their impact on social relationships and psychological well-being. Front Psychiatry. 2024;15(March):1–13. 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1260565.
- Risal A, Manandhar S, Manandhar K, Manandhar N, Kunwar D, Holen A. Quality of life and its predictors among aging people in urban and rural Nepal. Qual Life Res [Internet]. 2020;29(12):3201–12. [CrossRef]
- Ganesh Kumar S, Majumdar A, Pavithra G. Quality of life and its associated factors using WHOQOL- BREF among elderly in Urban Puducherry, India. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2014;8(1):54–7. [CrossRef]
- Riad A, Lu J, Del Olmo García F, Li D, Shen T, Hu Z, et al. OPEN ACCESS EDITED BY The impact of social support on the quality of life among older adults in China: An empirical study based on the eeee CFPS. 2020;1–12. [CrossRef]
- Liu D, Xi J, Hall BJ, Fu M, Zhang B, Guo J, et al. Attitudes toward aging, social support and depression among older adults: Difference by urban and rural areas in China. J Affect Disord [Internet]. 2020;274:85–92. [CrossRef]
- Lee ZWY, Cheung CMK, Thadani DR. An investigation into the problematic use of Facebook. Proc Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci. 2012;1768–76. [CrossRef]
- Christensen, SP. Social media use and its impact on relationships and emotions. All Theses Diss [Internet]. 2018;1–73. Available from: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd.
- Adamopoulos IP, Syrou NF, Mijwil M, Thapa P, Ali G, Dávid LD. Quality of indoor air in educational institutions and adverse public health in Europe: A scoping review. ELECTRON J GEN MED. 2025;22(2):em632. [CrossRef]
- Adamopoulos, I.; Syrou, N.; Vito, D. Climate Change Risks and Impacts on Public Health Correlated with Air Pollution—African Dust in South Europe. Med. Sci. Forum 2025, 33, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamopoulos, I.; Valamontes, A.; Tsirkas, P.; Dounias, G. Predicting Workplace Hazard, Stress and Burnout Among Public Health Inspectors: An AI-Driven Analysis in the Context of Climate Change. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2025, 15, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karageorgaki E, Adamopoulos IP, Valamontes A. Organizational behavior in the healthcare environment: A study of psychiatric services. ELECTRON J GEN MED. 2025;22(4):em652. [CrossRef]
- Thapa PP, Thapa A, Ekrem EC, Bista AT, Lamichhane N, Adamopoulos IP. Analyzing the link between emotional intelligence, education level, and quality of life in women of reproductive age. ELECTR J MED ED TE. 2024;17(3):em2406. [CrossRef]


| Variables | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| 45- 64 | 781 | 78.1 |
| >65 (older adulthood) | 219 | 21.9 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 417 | 41.7 |
| Female | 582 | 58.2 |
| Marital Status | ||
| Single | 2 | 0.2 |
| Married | 926 | 92.6 |
| Divorced | 7 | 0.7 |
| Widowed | 62 | 6.2 |
| Educational Status | ||
| Informal education | 85 | 8.5 |
| Primary | 161 | 16.1 |
| Secondary | 336 | 33.6 |
| Higher secondary | 156 | 15.6 |
| Graduation and above | 262 | 26.1 |
| Income Source | ||
| Work | 519 | 33.6 |
| Business / Investment | 298 | 29.8 |
| Foreign employment | 53 | 5.3 |
| Agriculture | 35 | 5.3 |
| Others | 93 | 9.3 |
| Never | Rarely (a few times in a year | Occasionally (a few times in a month | 3 to 5 times a week | Everyday | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51 | 84 | 89 | 176 | 600 | |
| 491 | 127 | 120 | 155 | 107 | |
| 885 | 26 | 25 | 39 | 25 | |
| YouTube | 29 | 47 | 53 | 106 | 765 |
| 490 | 127 | 121 | 155 | 107 | |
| Google+ | 49 | 246 | 645 | 28 | 32 |
| 25 | 65 | 99 | 63 | 748 |
| Social Media Use/Needs | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Diversions: (Escapism and Tension Release) | ||
| Low | 682 | 68.2 |
| High | 318 | 31.8 |
| Cognitive Needs (Acquire Information & Knowledge) | ||
| Low | 710 | 71.0 |
| High | 290 | 29.0 |
| Affective Needs (Emotions, Pleasure & Feelings) | ||
| Low | 629 | 62.9 |
| High | 371 | 37.1 |
| Personal Integrative (Enhance credibility, status) | ||
| Low | 609 | 60.9 |
| High | 391 | 39.1 |
| Social Integrative Needs (Interaction with Friends / Family) (n=994) | ||
| Low | 617 | 62.1 |
| High | 377 | 37.9 |
| Quality of Life | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Overall quality of life | ||
| Very good | 43 | 4.3 |
| Good | 551 | 55.1 |
| Neither poor nor good | 93 | 9.3 |
| Poor | 198 | 19.8 |
| Very poor | 115 | 11.5 |
| General health quality | ||
| Very Satisfied | 31 | 3.1 |
| Satisfied | 584 | 58.4 |
| Neither Satisfied/dissatisfied | 89 | 8.9 |
| Dissatisfied | 229 | 22.9 |
| Very Dissatisfied | 67 | 6.7 |
| Physical health quality | ||
| Very good (76-100) | 131 | 13 |
| Good (51-75) | 239 | 24 |
| Medium/ Fair (26-50) | 297 | 30 |
| Poor (0-25) | 333 | 33 |
| Psychological health quality | ||
| Very good (76-100) | 214 | 21 |
| Good (51-75) | 275 | 28 |
| Medium /Fair (26-50) | 151 | 15 |
| Poor (0-25) | 360 | 36 |
| Environment quality | ||
| Very good (76-100) | 232 | 23 |
| Good (51-75) | 217 | 22 |
| Medium/ Fair (26-50) | 232 | 23 |
| Poor (0-25) | 319 | 32 |
| Variables | Physical health | Psychological health | Environmental health |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.064 | 0.041 | 0.052 |
| Gender | 0.059 | 0.020 | 0.075 |
| Marital status | -0.033 | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Qualification level | -0.009 | -0.013 | -0.075 |
| Income Source | 0.032 | -0.014 | 0.010 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).