Search

BackgroundAn association between visual impairment and cognitive outcomes has been documented, but there is limited research examining this relationship using multiple measures of vision.MethodsParticipants included non-demented individuals in Year 3 of the Visual impairment was assessed using visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereo acuity. Cognitive function was defined using the digit symbol test and the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS). Incident cognitive impairment was defined as a 3MS score 5 points following Year 3. Linear mixed effects models examined longitudinal associations adjusting for year, age, sex, race, education, smoking, depression, diabetes, study site, as well as interaction terms between the vision parameters and years in study, between baseline age and years in study, and quadratic terms of baseline age and years in study. Discrete Cox regression models examined the risk of incident cognitive impairment.ResultsAnalyses included 2,444 participants (mean age = 74). Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereo acuity impairments were not associated with statistically significant changes in annual digit symbol test scores over 7 years of follow-up, as compared to those without these impairments. However, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereo acuity impairments were associated with greater declines in annual 3MS scores over 9 years. Participants with impaired visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereo acuity had a greater risk of incident cognitive impairment.ConclusionsOur results suggest that visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereo acuity impairments may be risk factors for cognitive decline.

Disabled people face social and environmental barriers to higher education, yet there is a dearth of clear, publicly available information on university websites related to accessibility and disability inclusion. Our team previously developed disability inclusion scores for the top 50 universities offering undergraduate programs based on funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and found low scores overall. Building on that, this study examines the relationship between disability inclusion (as scores ranging from 0 to 100 points) and six university characteristics for these 50 universities. The six university characteristics examined were U.S. News National Universities 2021 rankings, geographic region, year of institution founding, total number of undergraduates, public or private status of the university, and presence of an undergraduate disability studies program. Results indicate that university characteristics were not significantly associated with disability inclusion scores (p>0.05 for all university characteristics). The average scores across all categories of each characteristic fell below 72 points. These results indicate a gap in disability inclusion across all types of universities examined. Highly funded universities should evaluate their campuses for disability inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To examine the associations between vision impairment (VI) and COVID-19 testing and vaccination services in older US adults. Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed data from adults ≥ 65 years who participated in the National Health and Aging Trends Study (year 2021), a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Exposure: Distance VI (<20/40), near VI (<20/40), contrast sensitivity impairment (CSI) (<1.55 logCS), and any VI (distance, near, or CSI). Outcomes: Self-reported COVID-19 testing and vaccination. Results: Of 2,822 older adults, the majority were female (weighted; 55%) and White (82%), and 32% had any VI. In fully-adjusted regression analyses, older adults with any VI had similar COVID-19 vaccination rates to adults without any VI (OR:0.77, 95% CI:0.54–1.09), but had lower odds of COVID-19 testing (OR:0.82, 95% CI:0.68–0.97). Older adults with distance (OR:0.47, 95% CI:0.22–0.99) and near (OR:0.68, 95% CI:0.47–0.99) VI were less likely to be vaccinated for COVID-19, while those with CSI were less likely to test for COVID-19 (OR:0.76, 95% CI:0.61–0.95), as compared to peers without respective impairments. The remaining associations were not significant (p >.05). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings highlight inequities in the COVID-19 pandemic response for people with vision disability and emphasize the need for equitable prioritization of accessibility of healthcare services for all Americans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: People with disabilities are underrepresented in higher education, facing systematic obstacles such as inaccessible communication and physical environments and difficulties obtaining accommodations. This study aims to shed light on barriers to accessibility and disability inclusion in research institutions through confidential qualitative interviews with researchers with disabilities. Methods: We recruited participants via virtual flyers. Eligibility criteria included working in the United States (U.S.) as researchers that had applied for grant funding (last five years), and self-identifying as having a disability. We offered participants (total n = 35) the option of either semi-structured one-on-one live or written interviews based on their preference. Two study team members analyzed written and live responses using thematic analysis to identify themes. Results: Themes included identity/visibility, career trajectories, accessibility, accommodations, bias, representation, and inclusion. Some participants reported not disclosing their disabilities at work or during hiring processes due to fear of negative perceptions from peers or potential employers. Experiences around stigma and bias were noted both in professional relationships and when interacting with disability service offices, underscoring difficulties and delays in processes to secure accommodations. Respondents highlighted the lack of disability inclusion and low representation of people with disabilities in academia and elevated the importance of self-advocacy and of role models and mentors in shaping career pathways for future researchers with disabilities. Conclusion: Researchers with disabilities encounter systematic barriers at academic institutions, and lack of acknowledgement and research on these experiences has held back institutional and policy changes. To reduce disparities for researchers with disabilities, academic leadership must allocate resources to address ableism, create more inclusive environments, and raise standards beyond compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess differences in eye care utilization by vision difficulty (VD), diabetes status, and sociodemographic characteristics for American adults. The analysis pooled cross-sectional data from the National Health Interview Survey (2010–2018) from US adults ≥ 18 years. The outcome measure was eye care utilization in the past year. The primary independent variable included four groups: no VD or diabetes, only diabetes, only VD, and diabetes and VD. VD was defined as self-reported difficulty seeing even with glasses or contacts. Diabetic status was defined as ever receiving this diagnosis by a health professional. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined associations between eye care utilization, VD, diabetic status, and sociodemographic characteristics. Of the 284,599 adults included in this study, the majority were female (55%), White (73%), and non-Hispanic (84%). In regression analysis, as compared to adults without diabetes or VD, adults with both diabetes and VD had the greatest utilization (OR = 2.49, 99% CI = 2.18–2.85). Females had higher utilization than men (OR = 1.45, 99% CI = 1.41–1.50). Higher levels of education was associated with greater utilization (OR = 1.82, 99% CI = 1.72–1.92). White and American Indian adults without diabetes had higher utilization compared to other races (OR = 1.17, 99% CI = 1.12–1.24, 0.98–1.39). While adults with VD and diabetes are better connected to eye care, significant eye care disparities persist for marginalized groups in the U.S. Identifying and understanding these disparities and eliminating barriers to care is critical to better support all patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]