ReviewJMA journal2025
Representativeness of Social Surveys among Older Individuals Living in Poverty: Who Were Left Behind?
Review in JMA journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Public assistance program and food diversity among older people: a cross-sectional study using the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study data : Public assistance program and food diversity.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As considering only the data of survey respondents overlooks the opinion of voiceless people, acknowledging the direction of response biases of social survey data is crucial. We aimed to examine the representativeness of social surveys among impoverished older individuals. We conducted a cross-sectional study. Using linkage data from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES) and residential registry data of public assistance (PA), we examined the validity of responses on receiving PA, as documented by the JAGES. Furthermore, we assessed the sociodemographic factors associated with the response to the JAGES using information on age (65-74/75-84/≥85 years), sex (male/female), household composition (living alone or not), nationality (Japanese/others), and level of long-term care needs (not applicable/support required/care needed) using complete data of PA recipients. A multiple modified Poisson regression analysis was performed to calculate the adjusted incidence ratio (IR) for responses to each explanatory variable. Among the sampled 162 older PA recipients, 79 (48.8%) responded to the JAGES. Seven recipients were misclassified as non-recipients in JAGES survey. There was no misclassification among non-recipients. PA recipients living alone were more likely to respond to the JAGES (IR 1.48, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.13). Using linkage data of the PA and JAGES databases from different departments within the municipality, we observed that social survey data represented a greater proportion of individuals living alone than those living with others among older impoverished people. To provide equitable policies, stakeholders should collect further information on older impoverished individuals not living alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.