MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403306867 · doi:10.2196/58729

Association Between Visual Impairment and Daily Internet Use Among Older Japanese Individuals: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study

2024· article· en· W4403306867 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Atsuhide Takesue, Yoshimune Hiratsuka, Katsunori Kondo, Jun Aida, Atsushi Nakagomi, Shintaro Nakao

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlcon JapanJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTokyo Medical and Dental UniversityResearch Institute of Science and Technology for SocietyNational Center for Geriatrics and GerontologyJapan Agency for Medical Research and Development
KeywordsPreprintCross-sectional studyGerontologyVisual impairmentPsychologyThe InternetMedicineWorld Wide WebPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Older adults might not use computers due to psychological barriers, environmental barriers such as not owning a computer or lack of internet access, and health-related barriers such as difficulties with fine motor skills, low cognitive function, or low vision. Given the health benefits of internet use among older adults, inadequate use of the internet is an urgent public health issue in many countries. Objective: We aimed to determine whether visual impairment is associated with internet use in a population-based sample of older adults. Methods: This cross-sectional study sourced data for the year 2016 from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study. It included functionally independent community-dwelling individuals aged ≥65 years (N=19,452) in Japan. The respondents reported their visual status by answering the question, "Is your eyesight (without or with usual glasses or corrective lenses) excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?" We defined "internet user" as a person who uses the internet "almost daily." We used multivariate logistic regression with multiple imputations to analyze visual status, daily internet use, and any correlations between them. Results: We observed that 23.6% (4599/19,452) of respondents used the internet almost daily. Respondents with good visual status notably tended to use the internet more frequently than those with poor visual status. Specifically, 13% and 31% of respondents with poor and excellent vision, respectively, used the internet almost daily. In contrast, 66% and 45% of respondents with poor and excellent vision, respectively, did not use the internet. Even after adjusting for several covariates (age, sex, equivalized income, years of education, marital status, depression, history of systemic comorbidities, frequency of meeting friends, and total social participation score), significant associations persisted between visual status and daily internet usage. The odds ratios (ORs) tended to increase as visual status improved (P for trend <.001). The adjusted ORs for individuals with excellent and very good visual status who used the internet almost daily were 1.38 (95% CI 1.22-1.56) and 1.25 (95% CI 1.15-1.36), respectively. Conversely, the adjusted OR for those with fair or poor visual status was 0.73 (95% CI 0.62-0.86). Conclusions: In this study, we reaffirmed what several previous studies have pointed out using a very large dataset; visual impairment negatively impacted daily internet use by older adults. This highlights the need to address visual impairments to promote web use as health care services become more easily accessed on the web.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.391 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207