Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30193379›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2018

Disparities in Low-Vision Device Use Among Older US Medicare Recipients.

Stephanie Choi, Brian C Stagg, Joshua R Ehrlich

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Error in Introduction Section.JAMA ophthalmology · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stephanie ChoiHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Brian C StaggNational Clinician Scholars Program, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Joshua R EhrlichCenter for Eye Policy and Innovation, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.

Funding

Statistical Data EnclaveP30AG012846 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Esther M. Friedman · 1999 to 2026
$23.2M
Addressing Low Vision due to Severe Peripheral Field Loss: Development and Validation of a Patient-Centered Outcome MeasureK23EY027848 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI EHRLICH, JOSHUA ROBERT · 2017 to 2021
$1.2M
NEI NIH HHS K23 EY027848NIA NIH HHS P30 AG012846
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Low-vision assistive devices are not covered by Medicare and many private insurers, although there is evidence that they can improve functioning and quality of life. Little is known about whether sociodemographic disparities exist in the use of low-vision services by Medicare beneficiaries. Objective: To determine if sociodemographic disparities exist in the use of low-vision services by Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional population-based survey. The National Health Interview Survey is an annually administered nationally representative US survey. Data used in this study were from the 2002, 2008, and 2016 National Health Interview Survey vision supplement. Participants who were Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older with self-reported vision impairment were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate if sociodemographic or economic factors were associated with self-reported use of low-vision devices or low-vision rehabilitation among Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older who self-reported vision impairment. Results: There were 3058 participants included in the study. The survey weighted proportion of participants who were men was 37.9% (95% CI, 35.8%-40.0%), while 79.1% (95% CI, 77.2%-80.9%) were non-Hispanic white, 10.2% (95% CI, 9.0%-11.5%) were non-Hispanic black, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.6%-8.1%) were Hispanic, and 4.0% (95% CI, 3.2%-5.0%) identified with another race/ethnicity. The weighted proportion who reported using low-vison devices and low-vision rehabilitation were 26.1% (95% CI, 24.2%-28.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI, 2.8%-4.3%), respectively. In a model adjusted for ocular diagnoses, Hispanic individuals (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97) and individuals from other races/ethnicities (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.80), but not black individuals, were significantly less likely to report using low-vision devices than white individuals. In the model that was not adjusted for ocular diagnoses, black individuals (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99) were also significantly less likely to report using low-vision devices. There were no significant racial/ethnic disparities for reported use of low-vision rehabilitation. Conclusions and Relevance: Additional research is needed to clarify the association between sociodemographics and use of low-vision services in the Medicare population. However, policy makers could consider expanding Medicare coverage to include low-vision devices in an effort to address significant disparities in the use of this evidence-based intervention.

Indexed as

MedicareQuality of LifeAgedAudiovisual AidsCross-Sectional StudiesEthnicityFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansIncidenceMaleOdds RatioRacial GroupsRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesVision, Low

Identifiers

PMID30193379
PMCPMC6547628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.