↓ Skip to main content

COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Among US Adults With Vision or Hearing Disabilities

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Ophthalmology, September 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#47 of 6,643)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
56 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Among US Adults With Vision or Hearing Disabilities
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, September 2022
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.3041
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kea Turner, Oliver T. Nguyen, Amir Alishahi Tabriz, Jessica Y. Islam, Young-Rock Hong

Abstract

Despite persistent care delivery inequities, limited studies have assessed COVID-19 vaccination rates among adults with vision or hearing disabilities. To estimate the prevalence of and factors in COVID-19 vaccination among US adults with vision or hearing disabilities. This cross-sectional study assessed data from adults who participated in the US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey from April 2021 through March 2022. The survey assessed COVID-19 vaccine initiation, vaccine series completion, and determinants of health care access, including demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and social determinants of health. Vision disability (serious difficulty seeing even with eyeglasses or blindness) and hearing disability (serious difficulty hearing even with a hearing aid or deafness). First dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Adjusted estimated probabilities and 95% CIs of COVID-19 vaccine initiation were calculated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for survey week, demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and social determinants of health. In this study of 916 085 US adults (weighted population, 192 719 992; mean [SD] age, 54.0 [15.9] years; 52.0% women), most participants had initiated the COVID-19 vaccine series (82.7%). Adults with serious difficulty seeing (mean difference, -6.3%; 95% CI, -7.5% to -5.1%; P < .001) and blindness (mean difference, -20.1%; 95% CI, -25.1% to -15.0%; P < .001) had lower vaccination rates compared with adults with little to no vision impairment. Adults with serious difficulty hearing (mean difference, -2.1%; 95% CI, -3.5% to -0.7%; P = .003) and deafness (mean difference, -17.7%; 95% CI, -21.8% to -13.6%; P < .001) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no hearing impairment. Controlling for other factors, adults with blindness (mean difference, -6.3%; 95% CI, -11.1% to -1.5%; P = .009) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no vision impairment. Controlling for other factors, adults with deafness (mean difference, -5.5%; 95% CI, -9.2% to -1.9%; P = .003) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no hearing impairment. The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COVID-19 vaccine initiation is lower among adults with vision or hearing disabilities compared with adults without disabilities; this information may inform initiatives to promote equitable and accessible vaccination. Additional research may be needed to monitor COVID-19 vaccination disparities among adults with vision or hearing disabilities and to address disparities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 13 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 452. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2022.
All research outputs
#61,027
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#47
of 6,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,893
of 432,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#1
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 432,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.