Feasibility of the iPad as a hub for smart house technology in the elderly; effects of cognition, self-efficacy, and technology experience

Figures & data

Table 1 Description of the samples

N	28
Sex: M/F	11/17
Age: mean (SD)	78.5 (9.7)
Education years: mean (SD)	12.4 (3.7)
Coinhabitant: N	20
MMSE: mean (SD)	26.0 (3.4)

Abbreviations: MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; M, male; F, female; SD, standard deviation; N, number of subjects.

Table 2 Technology access/experience

PC access: yes/N (%)	13/28 (46%)
Own mobile phone: yes/N (%)	23/28 (82%)
Own iPhone: yes/N (%)	4/28 (14%)
Owned iPad previously: yes/N (%)	0/28 (0%)
Own iPod touch: yes/N (%)	1/28 (4%)

Abbreviations: N, number of subjects; PC, personal computer.

Table 3 Perception of received technology

iPad: yes/no (%)	20/28 (71%)
Door camera: yes/N (%)	20/26 (77%)
Theft alarm: yes/N (%)	19/25 (76%)
Fire alarm: yes/N (%)	19/27 (70%)
Video telephone: yes/N (%)	11/24 (45%)

Abbreviation: N, number of subjects who actually had the technology.

Figure 1 Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for perception of the iPad for smart house control.

Table 4 Ability to use iPad functionality

iPad light control: yes/N (%)	12/28 (42%)
iPad heat control: yes/N (%)	8/20 (40%)
iPad curtain control: yes/N (%)	4/7 (57%)
iPad TV control: yes/N (%)	0/3 (0%)

Abbreviation: N, number of subjects who actually had the technology.

Figure 2 Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for ability to use an iPad for smart house control of lights.