Reduced social participation among seniors with self-reported visual impairment and glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Social participation benefits health. We assessed the relationship between self-reported visual impairment (VI) and glaucoma versus seniors' social participation. METHODS: Data from individuals aged ≥65 years responding to the Canadian Community Health Survey Healthy Aging 2008/2009 (n = 16,369) was analyzed. Participation in eight social activities by seniors with and without self-reported VI or glaucoma was compared. RESULTS: Seniors with VI had significantly reduced participation (p<0.05) in sports/physical activities (18.0% vs. 33.6%), family/friendship activities outside the household (39.7% vs. 53.0%), service club/fraternal organization activities (11.4% vs. 18.4%), volunteer/charity work (13.4% vs. 24.9%), educational/cultural activities (16.2% vs. 24.5%), and other social recreational activities (21.6% vs. 31.0%) compared to those without VI. Differences in participation in church/religious activities (40.6% vs. 44.5%) and community/professional association activities (15.3% vs. 18.0%) were non-significant between seniors with and without VI. Seniors with glaucoma versus those without had significantly reduced participation (p<0.05) in family/friendship activities (46.6% vs. 52.9%), sports/physical activities (26.0% vs. 33.6%) and volunteer/charity work (20.4% vs. 24.9%). No participation in any social activity was significantly higher among seniors with VI versus those without (10.1% vs. 2.9%, p<0.05), but was similar among seniors with and without glaucoma (3.9% vs. 3.1%, p>0.05). After adjusting for the effects of age, sex, education, household income, ethnicity, job status and chronic diseases (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 3.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0-5.8), seniors with VI but no glaucoma were more likely not to engage in any social activities compared to seniors without VI and no glaucoma. Seniors with glaucoma but without VI had a similar level of non-participation (aOR = 0.9, 95%% CI 0.5-1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Significantly reduced social participation was found across six community activities among seniors with self-reported VI and in three activities among those with self-reported glaucoma. Policies and programs that help seniors with VI or glaucoma engage in social activities are needed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".