Participation in daily activities and social roles of older adults with visual impairment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: (1) to document participation in daily activities and social roles of older adults seeking services for visual impairment (VI) and compare it with that of the older population without VI or other disabilities, and (2) to explore correlates of their participation. METHODS: The 64 participants (46 women) had an average age of 79.3 years (SD = 5.9 years) and presented various types of VI. Participants were interviewed at home to collect information regarding their visual function (National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25), sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, including depressive symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale), and participation (Assessment of Life Habits/LIFE-H). Each participant was matched with another person without disabilities randomly recruited from the community. Results for the two populations on the Life-H participation domains were compared using t-tests. In the group with VI, general information (independent variables) was examined in relation to participation main scores (dependent variables), followed by multiple linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Participation in daily activities and social roles of participants with VI (mean +/- SD (/9) = 6.8 +/- 1.0 and 5.6 +/- 1.6, respectively) was significantly lower than that of participants without VI (8.1 +/- 0.4 and 8.3 +/- 0.4) (p < 0.0001). Depressive symptoms and perceived quality of distance vision were the strongest correlates and together explained more than 65% of the variance in the participation scores of the subjects with VI. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the participation restrictions associated with VI and underlines the importance of psychological aspects in participation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it