ArticlePloS one2026
Older adults' evaluations of smart home control screen designs: Appearance dimensions and behavioral intentions in a multi-stage study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In age-friendly home environments, control screens provide a point of contact between users and smart home systems, and their appearance may shape initial evaluations of these systems. This exploratory study used a multi-stage design to investigate older adults' appearance evaluations and behavioral-intention patterns across different screen designs. Similarity judgments provided by 15 experts were examined using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, from which eight representative designs were selected from the original pool of 87 samples. Three independent groups of older adults took part, respectively, in dimension construction, comparative appearance evaluation, and behavioral-intention assessment. Exploratory principal component analysis identified four dimensions specific to the present study: Sturdy and Reliable, Futuristic Technology, High Quality, and Simple and Efficient. In the supplementary entropy-weighted TOPSIS analysis, the two largest data-derived weights were assigned to Sturdy and Reliable (31.3%) and Simple and Efficient (28.8%), and S73 ranked first in the composite appearance evaluation. Preference, willingness to use, and willingness to purchase differed across the eight designs in the Friedman tests (all p < 0.001). S56 had the highest ranking for preference and willingness to use, while S69 ranked highest for willingness to purchase. At the sample level, S73 and S56 performed comparatively well at both stages, although the composite appearance and behavioral-intention rankings did not fully coincide. Because the two sets of outcomes came from independent participant groups, comparisons across the two stages were descriptive only. These findings provide a basis for subsequent development and prototype testing of age-friendly interfaces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.