Methods and Methodologies

Can the everyday technology use questionnaire predict overall functional level among older adults with mild cognitive impairment or mild-stage alzheimer's disease? – a pilot study

Corresponding Author

Charlotta Ryd MSc

PhD Student

[email protected]

Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Correspondence to:

Charlotta Ryd, Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Fack 23200, 141 83 Huddinge, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Louise Nygård PhD,

Louise Nygård PhD

Professor

Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Camilla Malinowsky PhD,

Camilla Malinowsky PhD

Assistant Professor

Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Annika Öhman PhD,

Annika Öhman PhD

Senior Lecturer

Division of Health Activity and Care, National Institute for the Study of Ageing and Later Life (NISAL), Department of Social and Welfare studies, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Anders Kottorp PhD,

Anders Kottorp PhD

Professor

Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Department of Occupational Therapy, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland

Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Charlotta Ryd MSc,

Corresponding Author

Charlotta Ryd MSc

PhD Student

[email protected]

Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Correspondence to:

Charlotta Ryd, Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Fack 23200, 141 83 Huddinge, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Louise Nygård PhD,

Louise Nygård PhD

Professor

Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Camilla Malinowsky PhD,

Camilla Malinowsky PhD

Assistant Professor

Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Annika Öhman PhD,

Annika Öhman PhD

Senior Lecturer

Division of Health Activity and Care, National Institute for the Study of Ageing and Later Life (NISAL), Department of Social and Welfare studies, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Anders Kottorp PhD,

Anders Kottorp PhD

Professor

Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Department of Occupational Therapy, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland

Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 14 April 2016

https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12330

Citations: 10

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Introduction

The number of older adults living with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) is increasing and they are often expected to live in their own homes without support, despite limited ability to perform daily life activities. The Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ) has proven to be able to separate these groups and might also have potential to predict overall functional level (need of assistance in daily life activities) among them.

Aim

To investigate whether the ETUQ can predict overall functional level among older adults with MCI or mild-stage AD.

Method

Participants were older adults with a mean age of 76 years with MCI (n = 28) or mild-stage AD (n = 39). A three-step scale indicating (i) independence, (ii) need for minimal assistance or (iii) need for moderate to maximal assistance in daily life was dichotomised in two ways and used as outcome variables in two logistic regression models. Predictors in both models were perceived ability to use everyday technology (ET) and amount of relevant everyday technologies measured by the ETUQ. Ethical approval was obtained from the regional Ethical Committee.

Result

Perceived ability to use ET discriminated individuals who were independent or in need of minimal support from those in need of moderate to maximal assistance (OR = 1.82, p < 0.01, confidence interval = 95%; 1.76–2.82). The amount of relevant everyday technologies discriminated individuals who were independent from those in need of assistance at any level (OR = 1.39; p < 0.01; confidence interval = 95%; 1.11–1.75).

Conclusion

Both perceived ability to use ET and amount of relevant everyday technologies had potential to predict overall function but at different levels. The findings support the predictive validity of the ETUQ and suggest further research for the development of clinical cut-off criteria.

References

1Wimo A, Winblad B, Jönsson L. The worldwide societal costs of dementia: estimates for 2009. Alzheimers Dement 2010; 6: 98–103.
10.1016/j.jalz.2010.01.010
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Reitz C, Brayne C, Mayeux R. Epidemiology of Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurol 2011; 7: 137–52.
10.1038/nrneurol.2011.2
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR. 2000, American Psychiatric Publishing Inc., Washington DC.
Google Scholar
4Arrighi HM, Gélinas I, McLaughlin TP, Buchanan J, Gauthier S. Longitudinal changes in functional disability in Alzheimer's disease patients. Int Psychogeriatr 2013; 25: 929–37.
10.1017/S1041610212002360
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Suh GH, Ju YS, Yeon BK, Shah A. A longitudinal study of Alzheimer's disease: rates of cognitive and functional decline. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004; 19: 817–24.
10.1002/gps.1168
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Winblad B, Palmer K, Kivipelto M, Jelic V, Fratiglioni L, Wahlund LO, Nordberg A, Bäckman L, Albert M, Almkvist O, Arai H, Basun H, Blennow K, De Leon M, DeCarli C, Erkinjuntti T, Giacobini E, Graff C, Hardy J, Jack C, Jorm A, Ritchie K, Van Duijn C, Visser P, Petersen RC. Mild cognitive impairment–beyond controversies, towards a consensus: report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Intern Med 2004; 256: 240–6.
10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01380.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Ward A, Arrighi HM, Michels S, Cedarbaum JM. Mild cognitive impairment: disparity of incidence and prevalence estimates. Alzheimers Dement 2012; 8: 14–21.
10.1016/j.jalz.2011.01.002
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, Dubois B, Feldman HH, Fox NC, Gamst A, Holtzmani DM, Jagust WJ, Petersen RC, Snyder PJ, Carrillo MC, Thies B, Phelps CH. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011; 7: 270–9.
10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.008
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Jekel K, Damian M, Wattmo C, Hausner L, Bullock R, Connelly PJ, Dubois B, Eriksdotter M, Ewers M, Graessel W, Kramberger MG, Law E, Mecocci P, Molinuevo JL, Nygård L, Olde-Rikkert MGM, Orgogozo J, Pasquier F, Peres K, Salmon E, Sikkes SAM, Sobow T, Spiegel R, Tsolaki M, Winblad B, Frölich L. Mild cognitive impairment and deficits in instrumental activities of daily living: a systematic review. Alzheimers Res Ther 2015; 7: 1–20.
10.1186/s13195-015-0099-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Kielhofner G. A Model of Human Occupation: Theory and Practice. 2008, Lippincot Williams & Wilkins, Maryland.
Google Scholar
11Emiliani PL. Assistive Technology (AT) versus Mainstream Technology (MST): the research perspective. Technol Disabil 2006; 18: 19–39.
10.3233/TAD-2006-18104
Google Scholar
12Patomella A-H, Kottorp A, Nygård L. Design and management features of everyday technology that challenge older adults. Br J Occup Ther 2013; 76: 390–8.
10.4276/030802213X13782044946229
Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Hagberg J-E. Livet Genom Tekniklandskapet. Livslopp, Åldrande Och Vardagsteknnikens Förändring. [Life Through the Technical Landscape. The Course of Life, Aging, and Everyday Technology's Change]. 2008, NISAL, Linköpings Universitet, Linköping.
Google Scholar
14Hedman A. Technology Use in Everyday Activities Among Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Study of Changes Over Time and Views on Technology as Support. 2015, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
Google Scholar
15Nygård L, Starkhammar S. The use of everyday technology by people with dementia living alone: mapping out the difficulties. Aging Ment Health 2007; 11: 144–55.
10.1080/13607860600844168
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Rosenberg L. Navigating Through Technological Landscapes: Views of People with Dementia or Mci and Their Significant Others. 2009, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
Google Scholar
17Rosenberg L, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Everyday technology use questionnaire: psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. OTJR (Thorofare N J) 2009; 29: 52–62.
10.3928/15394492-20090301-05
Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Nygård L. Manual to the Questionnaire about Everyday Technology in Home and Society: Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ II) & Short ETUQ (S-ETUQ). 2012, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
Google Scholar
19Nygard L, Pantzar M, Uppgard B, Kottorp A. Detection of activity limitations in older adults with MCI or Alzheimer's disease through evaluation of perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology: a replication study. Aging Ment Health 2012; 16: 361–71.
10.1080/13607863.2011.605055
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Rosenberg L, Kottorp A, Winblad B, Nygard L. Perceived difficulty in everyday technology use among older adults with or without cognitive deficits. Scand J Occup Ther 2009; 16: 216–26.
10.3109/11038120802684299
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Nygård L, Kottorp A. Engagement in instrumental activities of daily living, social activities, and use of everyday technology in older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Br J Occup Ther 2014; 77: 565–73.
10.4276/030802214X14151078348512
Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Ryd C, Nygård L, Malinowsky C, Öhman A, Kottorp A. Associations between performance of activities of daily living and everyday technology use among older adults with mild stage Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment. Scand J Occup Ther 2015; 22: 33–42.
10.3109/11038128.2014.964307
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Fisher AG, Jones KB. Assessment of Motor and Process Skills Volume 1: Development, Standardization and Administration Manual, 7th edn. 2012, Three Star Press Inc., Forth Collins, CO.
Google Scholar
24Merritt BK. Utilizing AMPS ability measures to predict level of community dependence. Scand J Occup Ther 2010; 17: 70–6.
10.3109/11038120903165107
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25Merritt BK. Validity of using the assessment of motor and process skills to determine the need for assistance. Am J Occup Ther 2011; 65: 643–50.
10.5014/ajot.2011.000547
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease. Neurology 1984; 34: 939–44.
10.1212/WNL.34.7.939
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27Petersen RC. Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity. J Intern Med 2004; 256: 183–94.
10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01388.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28Hällgren M, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Technology and everyday functioning in people with intellectual disabilities: a Rasch analysis of the Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ). J Intellect Disabil Res 2011; 55: 610–20.
10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01419.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29Larsson Lund M, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Perceived difficulty in the use of everyday technology: relationships with everyday functioning in people with aquired brain injury with a special focus on returning to work. Disabil Rehabil 2014; 36: 1618–25.
10.3109/09638288.2013.863388
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30Kottorp A, Nygard L. Development of a short-form assessment for detection of subtle activity limitations: can use of everyday technology distinguish between MCI and Alzheimer's disease? Expert Rev Neurother 2011; 11: 647–55.
10.1586/ern.11.55
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 2007, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Google Scholar
32Linacre JM. WINSTEPS Rasch Measurement Computer Program. 2006, Winsteps com, Illinois, Chicago, USA.
Google Scholar
33 IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. 2013, Armonk, NY, USA.
Google Scholar
34Marshall GA, Amariglio RE, Sperling RA, Rentz DM. Activities of daily living: where do they fit in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease? Neurodegener Dis Manag 2012; 2: 483–91.
10.2217/nmt.12.55
PubMed Google Scholar
35 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. 2013, American Psychiatric Association, Arlington, VA.
10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Google Scholar
36Albert SM, Michaels K, Padilla M, Pelton G, Bell K, Marder K, Stern Y, Devanand DP. Functional significance of mild cognitive impairment in elderly patients without a dementia diagnosis. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999; 7: 213–20.
10.1097/00019442-199908000-00005
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37Zanetti O, Geroldi C, Frisoni GB, Bianchetti A, Trabucchi M. Contrasting results between caregiver's report and direct assessment of activities of daily living in patients affected by mild and very mild dementia: the contribution of the caregiver's personal characteristics. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 196–202.
10.1111/j.1532-5415.1999.tb04578.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38Nygård L. The meaning of everyday technology as experienced by people with dementia who live alone. Dementia 2008; 7: 481–502.
10.1177/1471301208096631
Google Scholar
39Patomella A-H, Kottorp A, Malinowsky C, Nygård L. Factors that impact the level of difficulty of everyday technology in a sample of older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Technol Disabil 2011; 23: 243–50.
10.3233/TAD-2011-0331
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume31, Issue1

March 2017

Pages 201-209

Can the everyday technology use questionnaire predict overall functional level among older adults with mild cognitive impairment or mild-stage alzheimer's disease? – a pilot study

Abstract

Introduction

Aim

Method

Result

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Can the everyday technology use questionnaire predict overall functional level among older adults with mild cognitive impairment or mild-stage alzheimer's disease? – a pilot study

Abstract

Introduction

Aim

Method

Result

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information