Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
In total, 6,683 participants were included. Those with a little vision impairment had 20% lower odds of higher patient activation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71-0.90), and those with a lot of vision impairment had 26% lower odds of higher patient activation (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.55-0.98). In the second model, having vision or hearing impairment only was associated with lower odds of higher activation than having no sensory impairment. Having dual sensory impairment was associated with even lower odds of higher activation. Older Medicare beneficiaries with sensory impairment may be a group to target to improve patient activation levels, which could potentially improve health outcomes and health care utilization patterns in this population.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Assi, L., Kozhaya, K., Swenor, B. K., & Reed, N. S. (2023). Vision Impairment and Patient Activation among Medicare Beneficiaries. Ophthalmic epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2022.2078495
Vancouver
Assi L, Kozhaya K, Swenor BK, Reed NS. Vision Impairment and Patient Activation among Medicare Beneficiaries. Ophthalmic epidemiology. 2023. doi:10.1080/09286586.2022.2078495. PMID: 35593136.
BibTeX
@article{assi2023-35593136,
author = {Assi, Lama and Kozhaya, Karim and Swenor, Bonnielin K and Reed, Nicholas S},
title = {{Vision Impairment and Patient Activation among Medicare Beneficiaries}},
journal = {Ophthalmic epidemiology},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1080/09286586.2022.2078495},
pmid = {35593136},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2022.2078495}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- In total, 6,683 participants were included.
- Those with a little vision impairment had 20% lower odds of higher patient activation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71-0.90), and those with a lot of vision impairment had 26% lower odds of higher patient activation (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.55-0.98).
- In the second model, having vision or hearing impairment only was associated with lower odds of higher activation than having no sensory impairment.
- Having dual sensory impairment was associated with even lower odds of higher activation.
- Older Medicare beneficiaries with sensory impairment may be a group to target to improve patient activation levels, which could potentially improve health outcomes and health care utilization patterns in this population.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants6,683
- Effect sizeOR = 0.74
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 36 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Ophthalmic epidemiology) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 6,683 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35593136) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 36 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.