Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41605590›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Prevalence and determinants of assistive device use among older adults in India: a cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative survey.

Rashita Ravi, Jeby Jose Olickal, Aajna Adoor, Vusirikayala N Sireesha, James Devasia, Kavumpurathu Raman Thankappan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rashita RaviDepartment of Public Health, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, KL, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-6697-7780
Jeby Jose OlickalDepartment of Public Health, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, KL, India drjebyjose@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0298-5363
Aajna AdoorResearch Unit of Population Health, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Vusirikayala N SireeshaDepartment of Public Health, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, KL, India.
James DevasiaDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Kavumpurathu Raman ThankappanDepartment of Public Health, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, KL, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4536-2684

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo estimate the prevalence and identify the determinants of assistive device usage in daily life among older adults in India.

designCross-sectional analysis of nationally representative survey data.

settingIndia

participantsA total of 66 316 adults aged ≥45 years with complete information on assistive device use from Wave 1 of the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India, 2017-2018. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported use of any assistive device, including visual, hearing, mobility or other assistive devices. There were no predefined secondary outcome measures. Sociodemographic and health-related variables were analysed as covariates to assess factors associated with assistive device use.

resultsThe prevalence of assistive device use was 38.61% (95% CI: 37.73% to 39.50%). Use increased with age, from 34.48% among adults aged 45-59 years to 52.07% among those aged ≥75 years (adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) 1.30; 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.35). Prevalence was higher among men (40.94%) than women (37.51%) (aPR 1.06; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.09), among individuals with education above primary level (54.28%) compared with those with up to primary education (28.35%) (aPR 1.42; 95% CI: 1.36 to 1.48), and among urban residents (53.88%) vs rural residents (31.16%) (aPR 1.18; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.22). A clear socioeconomic gradient was observed, with prevalence increasing from 27.65% in the poorest to 50.66% in the richest wealth quintile (aPR 1.32; 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.39). Assistive device use was higher among participants with chronic conditions (47.30%) than those without (28.16%) (aPR 1.15; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.19) and was markedly higher among those with a prior eye or vision diagnosis (64.93%) compared with those without (14.61%) (aPR 3.94; 95% CI: 3.78 to 4.11). Among users, spectacles or contact lenses were most common (89.26%), followed by walking sticks or walkers (11.62%) and dentures (6.15%). State-level prevalence varied widely, ranging from 71.27% in Goa to 13.44% in Arunachal Pradesh.

conclusionAssistive device use was reported by less than half of Indian adults aged ≥45 years. The findings reveal clear socioeconomic and geographic inequities in access to assistive devices, with substantially lower use among older adults with less education, those in poorer wealth quintiles and rural residents. These disparities highlight the need for equity-focused interventions that improve accessibility to assistive devices, particularly for socially and economically disadvantaged groups and individuals with chronic conditions.

Indexed as

Self-Help DevicesActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceSocioeconomic FactorsAgingPUBLIC HEALTHQuality of LifeSelf-Help Devices

Identifiers

PMID41605590
PMCPMC12853463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.