Everyday technology use among people with Parkinson’s disease

Figures & data

Figure 1. Process of inclusion of participants to the study.

Flow chart showing participant inclusion into the study, whereby 44 people were eligible and 34 were included.

Figure 2. The relationship between participants’ perceived ability to use ET and perceived ET challenge. Each # represents one participant. M = Participants’ mean perceived ability measure (56.21) and the mean perceived challenge level measure of the ETs (50.00).

Right side: Everyday technologies perceived as more challenging higher up, such as airport check-in, or least challenging, lower down, such as phone calls on smartphones. Left side: Participants rated their ability to use technology as high.

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study sample, n = 34.

Characteristics
Sex, female, n (%)	16 (47.1)
Age, years	73 (6.3)
Living conditions, n (%)
Cohabiting	16 (47.1)
Living alone	18 (52.9)
Disease duration, years	6.76 (5.29)
Education, years	13.6 (2.9)
Overall functional level, n (%)
1. Independent	19 (55.9)
2. Minimal assistance	12 (35.3)
3. Moderate assistance	3 (8.8)
4. Maximal assistance	0 (-)
Clinical measures
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (0 − 30) m(sd) min/max	25.50 (2.25) 22/30
Self-reported cognitive impairment, n (%)^a
0. Normal	9 (26.5)
1. Slight impairment	18 (52.9)
2. Mild impairment	5 (14.7)
3. Moderate impairment	2 (5.9)
Disease-specific quality of life (0 − 100)^b	20 (3.1/46.9)
Self-reported motor function (0 − 100^c)	20 (0–60)
Postural tremor of the hands, n (%)^d
0. Normal, R/L	22 (65)/18 (53)
1. Slight, R/L	11 (32)/14 (41)
2. Mild, R/L	1(3)/2 (6)
Kinetic tremor of the hands, n (%)^e
0. Normal, R/L	23(67)/18 (53)
1. Slight, R/L	10(29)/16 (47)
2. Mild, R/L	1(2.9)/0 (-)

^a MDS-UPDRS 1a.

^b Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39, (0 = perfect health, 100 =worse health imaginable).

^c Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39, motor sub-scale (0 = perfect health, to 100 =worse health imaginable).

^d MDS-UPDRS 3.15.

^e MDS-UPDRS 3.16.

Table 2. The ten everyday technologies perceived as most and least relevant.

Most relevant	n	Least relevant	n
Stove	34	Lawn mower	16
Fire alarm	34	Landline phone	13
Credit card with PIN	34	Booking laundry time: digital	9
Automated phone services	34	Booking laundry time: lock	8
Elevator	34	Computer: games	6
Automated water faucet	33	VHS player	6
TV and remote	33	Mobile phone: make call	5
Signal button: bus	32	Mobile phone: receive call	5
Ticket machine (Train)	31	Mobile phone: text message	5
ATM	31	MP3-player	1

Table

Everyday technology, n = 41	Participants, n = 34
Stove	34
Fire alarm	34
Credit card with PIN	34
Automated phone services	34
Elevator	34
Automated water faucet	33
Remote control: TV	33
Signal button: bus	32
Ticket machine (SL, SJ)	31
ATM	31
Radio	30
Smartphone: make call	29
Smartphone: receive call	29
Computer: word processing	29
Smartphone: text message, email	29
Coffee maker	27
Customer card (retail store)	27
Automatic-check-in airport	27
Alarm clock	27
Computer: e-mail	26
Computer: information search	26
Computer: internet banking	26
Smartphone: social media	24
Smartphone: information search	24
Door code	23
Tablet: text message, e-mail	22
Tablet: information search	22
Digital camera	22
Computer: social media	22
Tablet: social media	21
DVD player	20
Lawn mower	16
Landline phone	13
Booking laundry time: digital	9
Booking laundry time: lock	8
Computer: games	6
VHS player	6
Mobil phone: make call	5
Mobil phone: receive call	5
Mobil phone: text message	5
MP3-player	1