Association of objective visual impairment with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among adults aged ≥50 years in low/middle-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is currently limited literature on the association between visual impairment and suicidal thoughts and behaviours, especially among older adults from low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Thus, we aimed to investigate the associations of objectively measured distance visual impairment with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among adults aged ≥50 years from six LMICs and to identify potential mediators. METHODS: Cross-sectional, community-based, nationally representative data from the WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health were analysed. Objective distance visual acuity was measured using the tumbling E logMAR chart, and vision impairment was categorised as none, mild, moderate and severe. Self-reported information on past 12-month suicidal ideation and suicide attempts was also collected. Multivariable logistic regression and mediation analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Data on 34 129 individuals aged ≥50 years (mean (SD) age, 62.4 (16.0) years; 47.9% men) were analysed. After adjustment for potential confounders, compared with no visual impairment, severe visual impairment was significantly associated with suicidal ideation (OR=9.50; 95% CI=2.47 to 36.52). Moderate and severe visual impairment were significantly associated with a 2.22 (95% CI=1.14 to 4.35) and 11.50 (95% CI=1.44 to 91.88) times higher odds of suicide attempts, respectively. Disability, poor self-rated health, mobility and loneliness explained 14.0%, 9.3%, 7.2% and 6.3% of the association between moderate/severe visual impairment and suicide attempts, respectively. CONCLUSION: Interventions to reduce suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among older adults with visual impairment in LMICs are required, targeting identified mediators, while using tested strategies for suicide prevention per se in LMICs may yield beneficial outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".