Home › Research › Risk factors
Self-reported dual sensory impairment, dementia, and functional limitations in Medicare beneficiaries
Lama Assi, Joshua R Ehrlich, Yunshu Zhou, Alison Huang, Judith Kasper, Frank R Lin, Michael M McKee, Nicholas S Reed et al.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2021-09-03
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Overall, 7124 participants representative of Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older were included. Of them, 43.9% were 75 years or older and 55.3% were female. Older adults with dual sensory impairment had greater limitations with mobility (prevalence rate ratio [PRR] = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.28-1.63), self-care (PRR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.25-1.59), and household activities (PRR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.37-1.72) compared with those without sensory impairment. They also had greater limitations than those with a single sensory impairment across the different activity categories. In models taking into account the combined estimated effect of both sensory impairment and dementia, those with dual sensory impairment and dementia had greater limitations than those without sensory impairment or dementia in each category (mobility: PRR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.59-2.14, self-care: PRR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.59-2.18, household: PRR = 2.41, 95% CI = 2.09-2.77). Older adults with dual sensory impairment had greater functional limitations compared with those without sensory impairment and those with a single sensory impairment. Strategies to improve visual and/or hearing function (e.g., sensory aids, rehabilitation) could potentially help prevent or minimize disability, even among those with dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Assi, L., Ehrlich, J. R., Zhou, Y., Huang, A., Kasper, J., Lin, F. R., et al. (2021). Self-reported dual sensory impairment, dementia, and functional limitations in Medicare beneficiaries. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17448
Vancouver
Assi L, Ehrlich JR, Zhou Y, Huang A, Kasper J, Lin FR, et al. Self-reported dual sensory impairment, dementia, and functional limitations in Medicare beneficiaries. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2021. doi:10.1111/jgs.17448. PMID: 34478566.
BibTeX
@article{assi2021-34478566,
author = {Assi, Lama and Ehrlich, Joshua R and Zhou, Yunshu and Huang, Alison and Kasper, Judith and Lin, Frank R and McKee, Michael M and Reed, Nicholas S and others},
title = {{Self-reported dual sensory impairment, dementia, and functional limitations in Medicare beneficiaries}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1111/jgs.17448},
pmid = {34478566},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17448}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Overall, 7124 participants representative of Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older were included.
- Of them, 43.9% were 75 years or older and 55.3% were female.
- Older adults with dual sensory impairment had greater limitations with mobility (prevalence rate ratio [PRR] = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.28-1.63), self-care (PRR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.25-1.59), and household activities (PRR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.37-1.72) compared with those without sensory impairment.
- They also had greater limitations than those with a single sensory impairment across the different activity categories.
- In models taking into account the combined estimated effect of both sensory impairment and dementia, those with dual sensory impairment and dementia had greater limitations than those without sensory impairment or dementia in each category (mobility: PRR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.59-2.14, self-care: PRR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.59-2.18, household: PRR = 2.41, 95% CI = 2.09-2.77).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants7,124
- Effect size43.9%; 55.3%; RR = 1.41
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 68/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 38 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 68 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 7,124 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34478566) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 38 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 68 out of 100. |
| Total | 68 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “hearing”
118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hearing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 118 tagged studies.