The use of everyday information communication technologies in the lives of older adults living with and without dementia in Sweden

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the two groups

		Group with dementia (n= 35)	Group with no known cognitive impairment (n= 34)	Comparison test
Gender	Male	13 (37.1%)	13 (38.2%)	Pearson χ^2 p> .05
	Female	22 (62.9%)	21 (61.8%)
Age	Mean (SD)	74.43 (7.18)	76.71 (8.04)	Independent t-test p> .05
	Min-Max.	59–90	62–96
Living situation	Alone	19 (54.3%)	21 (61.8%)	Pearson χ^2 p> .05
	Co-habiting	16 (45.7%)	13 (38.2%)
Years spent in education	Mean	11.13	12.37	Independent t-test p> .05
	(SD)	(3.29)	(3.35)
Other health conditions (not dementia)	No impairment or diagnosis	3 (8.6%)	1 (2.9%)	Fisher’s Exact Test p> .05
	Medical diagnosis	5 (14.3%)	6 (17.6%)
	One impairment	6 (17.1%)	5 (17.1%)
	Medical diagnosis, one impairment	13 (37.1%)	8 (37.1%)
	Two impairments	8 (22.9%)	11 (22.9%)
	Medical diagnosis, two impairments	0 (0%)	3 (8.8%)
MoCA* score	Mean (SD)	17.57 (5.32)	26.32 (2.29)	Mann-Whitney U Test p< .01
	Min-Max	4–30	21–29

*Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Nasreddine et al., 2005) lower scores indicate increased cognitive impairment.

Table 2. ETUQ response ratings and how they aggregate into the two categories “EICTs relevant” and “EICTs used”

Aggregated rating	Not relevant	EICTs relevant
		EICTs used
ETUQ rating	Technology not present. Or technology never used and/or no intention of use.	Technology is used with no difficulties or hesitation.	Technology used with limited difficulties or hesitation.	Technology used with extensive difficulties that arise often.	Technology used only together with another person.	Technology not used anymore or has not come into use, even if it is relevant.

Table 3. Comparisons between groups of the variables EICTs relevant and used, and ability to use ET

		Group with dementia (n= 35)	Group with no known cognitive impairment (n= 34)	Median difference	Mann-Whitney U Comparison Test	Effect size (Cohen’s d)
EICTs Relevant (max. 31)	Median	7	11	4	p ˂ .05	0.64
	(IQR)	(4–11)	(8–13)
	Min-Max.	1–15	3–19
EICTs Used (max. 31)	Median	5	10.5	5.5	p ˂ .001	0.93
	(IQR)	(3–10)	(7.75–13)
	Min-Max.	1–13	1–18
Ability to use ET (logits)	Median	53.27	60.71	7.47	p < .001	1.85
	(IQR)	(49.49–56.63)	(57.68–65.06)
	Min-Max.	42.44–65.75	53.88–83.61

Figure 1. Pictographs and boxplots by group of the variables “EICTs relevant”, “EICTs used” and “Ability to use ET”. Each

symbol signifies one relevant EICT. The total symbols around each ‘person’ signify the median amount of EICTs relevant for that group. Only the symbols above the ‘arms’ signify EICTs used

Figure 2. Frequency of responses given as ‘relevant’ to each EICT shown between the two groups and corresponding each EICT’s level of challenge, where a high logit value indicates greater challenge. Relevant is reflected by its component parts of ‘used with no difficulty or hesitation’, ‘used with any degree of difficulty’ and ‘not currently in use’

Figure 3. The remainder of EICTs for which no item calibration measure could be generated due to insufficient response frequencies for ‘relevant’ or due to a floor effect resulting from insufficient variation in the responses. Relevant is reflected as per Figure 2

Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., … Chertkow, H. (2005). The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(4), 695–699. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar