SIGNIFICANCE
Social media is used by >4.48 billion people worldwide. Despite its popularity, vision-impaired individuals struggle to use social media given visual inaccessibility of content and lack of access to Internet/Wireless-Fidelity–enabled devices. Our study explores visually impaired adult's use of social media in comparison to a control group.
PURPOSE
This study aimed to report the demographic profile and patterns of social media use among adults with vision impairment (VI) aged 18 to 35 years and compare it with an age-matched normally sighted group in India. In addition, we explored barriers to use of social media among adults with VI.
METHODS
Vision-impaired and normally sighted adults (controls) aged 18 to 35 years at L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India, answered a questionnaire about social media use (e.g., platform used).
RESULTS
Four hundred twenty-two individuals (201 VI, 221 controls) participated. Normally sighted adults (98%) used social media more than the VI group (81%; p<0.001). Vision-impaired users were predominantly male (85%) and unemployed (57%; p<0.00001 for both). There was no significant difference in educational level between groups (p=0.17). Smartphones were the most popular device used (VI, 161 [99%]; control, 206 [95%]), with tablet PC/iPad being the least popular (VI, 5 [3%]; control, 12 [6%]). Adults with VI and controls commonly used WhatsApp as communication platforms, and Facebook and Twitter as networking platforms. Approximately one-third of individuals across both social media user groups reported barriers to use (VI, 48 [30%]; control, 74 [34%]; p<0.001). Vision-impaired individuals cited accessibility issues of having to rely on audio over vision to navigate social media, whereas controls reported having to share a phone.
CONCLUSIONS
The proportion of social media usage among VI adults is high (81%) and is substantially higher than the 33% reported in the general Indian population. Vision-impaired adults who used social media were male with moderate VI and were less likely to be employed compared with controls.