VISUAL IMPAIRMENT AND THE USE OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL HOME CARE IN CANADA: THE CANADIAN LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON AGING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to home care services can allow people to continue to live at home in the face of disabling health conditions like vision loss. Our goal was to determine the use of home care services in those with and without visual impairment in Canada. Participants came from the baseline exam of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging Comprehensive Cohort. Inclusion criteria included being between the ages of 45 and 85 years old, community-dwelling, and living near one of the 11 data collection sites across 7 Canadian provinces. People were excluded if they were in an institution, living on a First Nations reserve, a full-time member of the Canadian Armed Forces, did not speak French or English, or had cognitive impairment. Presenting visual acuity was measured using the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart at 2 meters. Visual impairment was defined as binocular acuity worse than 20/60. In 29,640 people, the use of any home care was greater in those with visual impairment than in those without (28% versus 12%, respectively, P<0.01). After adjusting for demographics and health, people with visual impairment were more likely to use informal home care (OR=1.98, 95% CI 1.41–2.80) and formal home care either alone or along with informal care (OR=2.83, 95% CI 1.85–4.34) than those without visual impairment. Marital status was a modifier. These findings warrant further exploration and have major health service implications given the rising prevalence of visual impairment due to age-related eye diseases.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".