Table 3.
Association of vision impairment with internet use and any health information technology use: logistic regression results.
| Variablea | Internet use vs nonuse, aORb (95% CI) | Any HITc use vs nonuse, aORb (95% CI) | Any HIT use vs nonuse among internet users, aORb (95% CI) | |
| Vision impairment vs no impairment | 0.64 (0.49-0.83)d | 0.74 (0.56-0.97)e | 1.15 (0.77-1.74) | |
| Blindness vs no blindness | 0.83 (0.44-1.57) | 1.08 (0.54-2.17) | 2.32 (0.72-7.43) | |
| Age group (years; vs 65-74 years) | ||||
|
|
75-84 | 0.39 (0.29-0.52)f | 0.45 (0.34-0.59)f | 0.92 (0.61-1.37) |
|
|
≥85 | 0.20 (0.15-0.27)f | 0.17 (0.11-0.25)f | 0.36 (0.20-0.63) |
| Female vs male | 1.31 (1.00-1.71) | 1.25 (0.96-1.64) | 1.02 (0.69-1.49 | |
| Race/ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic white) | ||||
|
|
Non-Hispanic black | 0.35 (0.23-0.54)f | 0.44 (0.28-0.71)d | 0.87 (0.40-1.86) |
|
|
Hispanic | 0.23 (0.14-0.40)f | 0.23 (0.12-0.45)f | 0.37 (0.16-0.83)e |
|
|
Non-Hispanic Asian | 0.53 (0.31-0.91)e | 0.86 (0.41-1.77) | 1.81 (0.50-6.54) |
|
|
Other | 1.07 (0.53-2.15) | 0.89 (0.41-1.94) | 0.69 (0.22-2.19) |
| Not married vs married | 0.70 (0.55-0.89)d | 0.76 (0.59-0.99)e | 1.00 (0.70-1.43) | |
| College degree vs no degree | 4.17 (3.09-5.62)f | 3.04 (2.23-4.12)f | 1.27 (0.86-1.87) | |
| Family income (vs <200% of the poverty threshold) | ||||
|
|
200-399 | 1.37 (1.03-1.83)e | 1.53 (1.11-2.12)f | 1.23 (0.75-2.04) |
|
|
≥400 | 1.93 (1.40-2.66)f | 2.01 (1.41-2.86)g | 1.46 (0.88-2.43) |
|
|
Missing | 1.01 (0.67-1.53) | 1.41 (0.90-2.22) | 2.71 (1.11-6.62)f |
| Number of medical conditions | 0.96 (0.88-1.03) | 1.00 (0.92-1.08) | 1.08 (0.96-1.22) | |
| Hearing impairment vs no impairment | 1.09 (0.75-1.59) | 0.97 (0.66-1.43) | 0.95 (0.54-1.69) | |
| Medicaid vs no Medicaid | 0.63 (0.41-0.96)e | 0.76 (0.48-1.19) | 1.24 (0.63-2.45) | |
| Private HIg vs no private HI | 1.07 (0.83-1.39) | 1.15 (0.88-1.52) | 1.25 (0.63-2.45) | |
| Military HI vs no military HI | 1.58 (1.08-2.31)e | 1.53 (1.02-2.31)e | 0.87 (0.47-1.60) | |
| Hospitalized vs not hospitalized | 0.92 (0.68-1.25) | 0.87 (0.61-1.24) | 0.80 (0.51-1.24) | |
| Received care ≥10 times vs received no/less care | 0.71 (0.54-0.92)e | 0.88 (0.65-1.18) | 1.22 (0.79-1.88) | |
| Saw/talked to a general practitioner vs did not see/talk | 1.80 (1.21-2.67)d | 1.27 (0.84-1.93) | 0.90 (0.35-2.04) | |
| Saw/talked to an eye doctor vs did not see/talk | 1.35 (1.04-1.74)e | 1.31 (0.99-1.74) | 1.01 (0.68-1.52) | |
| Saw/talked to a medical specialist vs did not see/talk | 1.50 (1.16-1.95)d | 1.81(1.40-2.35)f | 1.80 (1.21-2.68)d | |
| Saw/talked to a physical/occupational therapist vs did not see/talk | 1.41 (1.04-1.91)e | 1.51 (1.11-2.05)e | 1.57 (1.00-2.44)e | |
| Saw/talked to a mental health professional vs did not see/talk | 0.53 (0.33-0.85)d | 0.86 (0.57-1.30) | 1.48 (0.73-3.00) | |
aModel statistics: N=2866, design df=885, F (26, 860)=14.54, P value <.001 for internet use versus nonuse; N=2866, design df=885, F (26, 860)=10.90, P value <.001 for any HIT use vs nonuse; and N=963, design df=794, F (26, 860)=2.13; P value <.001 for any HIT use vs nonuse among internet users.
baOR: adjusted odds ratio.
cHIT: health information technology.
dP<.01.
eP<.05.
fP<.001.
gHI: health insurance.