State of research and program development for adults with hearing loss

Cesarean birth and adverse birth outcomes among sub-populations of deaf and hard-of-hearing people

BACKGROUND

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) people are at higher risk than their non-DHH counterparts of experiencing adverse birth outcomes. There is a lack of research focusing on social, linguistic, and medical factors related to being DHH which may identify groups of DHH people who experience more inequity.

OBJECTIVE

Examine difference in prevalence of cesarean and adverse birth outcomes among diverse sub-groups of DHH people.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of DHH birthing people in the U.S. who gave birth within the past 10 years. The sample was predominantly white, college educated, and married. We assessed cesarean birth and three adverse birth outcomes: preterm birth, low birthweight, and NICU admission post-delivery. DHH-specific variables were genetic etiology of hearing loss, preferred language (i.e., American Sign Language, English, or bilingual), severity of hearing loss, age of onset of hearing loss, and self-reported quality of perinatal care communication. We estimated prevalence, 95 % confidence intervals, and unadjusted prevalence ratios.

RESULTS

Thirty-one percent of our sample reported a cesarean birth. Overall, there were no significant differences in prevalence across the outcome variables with respect to preferred language, genetic etiology, severity, and age of onset. Poorer perinatal care communication quality was associated with higher prevalence of preterm birth (PR = 2.37) and NICU admission (PR = 1.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found no evidence supporting differences in obstetric outcomes among DHH birthing people across medical factors related to deafness. Findings support the important role of communication access for DHH people in healthcare environments.

Exploring neurocognitive factors and brain activation in adult cochlear implant recipients associated with speech perception outcomes-A scoping review

Background

Cochlear implants (CIs) are considered an effective treatment for severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. However, speech perception outcomes are highly variable among adult CI recipients. Top-down neurocognitive factors have been hypothesized to contribute to this variation that is currently only partly explained by biological and audiological factors. Studies investigating this, use varying methods and observe varying outcomes, and their relevance has yet to be evaluated in a review. Gathering and structuring this evidence in this scoping review provides a clear overview of where this research line currently stands, with the aim of guiding future research.

Objective

To understand to which extent different neurocognitive factors influence speech perception in adult CI users with a postlingual onset of hearing loss, by systematically reviewing the literature.

Methods

A systematic scoping review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies investigating the influence of one or more neurocognitive factors on speech perception post-implantation were included. Word and sentence perception in quiet and noise were included as speech perception outcome metrics and six key neurocognitive domains, as defined by the DSM-5, were covered during the literature search (Protocol in open science registries: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z3G7W of searches in June 2020, April 2022).

Results

From 5,668 retrieved articles, 54 articles were included and grouped into three categories using different measures to relate to speech perception outcomes: (1) Nineteen studies investigating brain activation, (2) Thirty-one investigating performance on cognitive tests, and (3) Eighteen investigating linguistic skills.

Conclusion

The use of cognitive functions, recruiting the frontal cortex, the use of visual cues, recruiting the occipital cortex, and the temporal cortex still available for language processing, are beneficial for adult CI users. Cognitive assessments indicate that performance on non-verbal intelligence tasks positively correlated with speech perception outcomes. Performance on auditory or visual working memory, learning, memory and vocabulary tasks were unrelated to speech perception outcomes and performance on the Stroop task not to word perception in quiet. However, there are still many uncertainties regarding the explanation of inconsistent results between papers and more comprehensive studies are needed e.g., including different assessment times, or combining neuroimaging and behavioral measures.

Systematic review registration

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z3G7W.

Emergency department condition acuity, length of stay, and revisits among deaf and hard-of-hearing patients: A retrospective chart review

OBJECTIVE

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) patients are understudied in emergency medicine health services research. Theory and limited evidence suggest that DHH patients are at higher risk of emergency department (ED) utilization and poorer quality of care. This study assessed ED condition acuity, length of stay (LOS), and acute ED revisits among DHH patients. We hypothesized that DHH patients would experience poorer ED care outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of a single health care system using data from a large academic medical center in the southeast United States. Data were received from the medical center's data office, and we sampled patients and encounters from between June 2011 and April 2020. We compared DHH American Sign Language (ASL) users (n = 108), DHH English speakers (n = 358), and non-DHH English speakers (n = 302). We used multilevel modeling to assess the differences among patient segments in outcomes related to ED use and care.

RESULTS

As hypothesized, DHH ASL users had longer ED LOS than non-DHH English speakers, on average 30 min longer. Differences in ED condition acuity, measured through Emergency Severity Index and triage pain scale, were not statistically significant. DHH English speakers represented a majority (61%) of acute ED revisit encounters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified that DHH ASL users have longer ED LOS than non-DHH English speakers. Additional research is needed to further explain the association between DHH status and ED care outcomes (including ED LOS and acute revisit), which may be used to identify intervention targets to improve health equity.

Health Literacy and Difficulty Accessing Information About the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Parents Who Are Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing

People who are deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) struggle with information marginalization and limited health literacy, challenging their ability to access information on preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study assessed the relationship between language preference, health literacy, and COVID-19 information barriers among parents who are DHH in the United States. Data were drawn from a larger study focused on individuals who are DHH who had given birth in the past 10 years. Respondents completed a web-based survey between March 2020 and July 2021. We segmented respondents by language preference [i.e., American Sign Language (ASL), English, or bilingual ASL/English] and used logistic regression models to test the hypothesis that language preference and health literacy were both associated with COVID-19 information marginalization. Of the total sample (N = 417), approximately 17% had limited health literacy, and 22% reported experiencing difficulty accessing information about COVID-19. In adjusted analyses, respondents with limited health literacy ([adjusted odds ratio] aOR = 2.245) and Hispanic ethnicity (aOR = 2.149) had higher risk of reporting information access barriers. There was no association between language preference and reporting COVID-19 information barriers. However, individuals who are DHH with limited health literacy were at higher risk of experiencing information marginalization during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for tailored information based on access needs. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2022;6(4):e310-e315.].

"They're Not Willing To Accommodate Deaf patients": Communication Experiences of Deaf American Sign Language Users in the Emergency Department

Deaf people who use American Sign Language (ASL) are more likely to use the emergency department (ED) than their hearing English-speaking counterparts and are also at higher risk of receiving inaccessible communication. The purpose of this study is to explore the ED communication experience of Deaf patients. A descriptive qualitative study was performed by interviewing 11 Deaf people who had used the ED in the past 2 years. Applying a descriptive thematic analysis, we developed five themes: (1) requesting communication access can be stressful, frustrating, and time-consuming; (2) perspectives and experiences with Video Remote Interpreting (VRI); (3) expectations, benefits, and drawbacks of using on-site ASL interpreters; (4) written and oral communication provides insufficient information to Deaf patients; and (5) ED staff and providers lack cultural sensitivity and awareness towards Deaf patients. Findings are discussed with respect to medical and interpreting ethics to improve ED communication for Deaf patients.

Conceptual Model of Emergency Department Utilization among Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Patients: A Critical Review

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) populations are understudied in health services research and underserved in healthcare systems. Existing data indicate that adult DHH patients are more likely to use the emergency department (ED) for less emergent conditions than non-DHH patients. However, the lack of research focused on this population’s ED utilization impedes the development of health promotion and quality improvement interventions to improve patient health and quality outcomes. The purpose of this study was to develop a conceptual model describing patient and non-patient (e.g., community, health system, provider) factors influencing ED utilization and ED care processes among DHH people. We conducted a critical review and used Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use and the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model to classify factors based on their theoretical and/or empirically described role. The resulting Conceptual Model of Emergency Department Utilization Among Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Patients provides predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors influencing DHH patient ED care seeking and ED care processes. The model highlights the abundance of DHH patient and non-DHH patient enabling factors. This model may be used in quality improvement interventions, health services research, or in organizational planning and policymaking to improve health outcomes for DHH patients.

Community-Engaged Needs Assessment of Deaf American Sign Language Users in Florida, 2018

OBJECTIVES

Deaf American Sign Language (ASL) users comprise a linguistic and cultural minority group that is understudied and underserved in health education and health care research. We examined differences in health risk behaviors, concerns, and access to health care among Deaf ASL users and hearing English speakers living in Florida.

METHODS

We applied community-engaged research methods to develop and administer the first linguistically accessible and contextually tailored community health needs assessment to Deaf ASL users living in Florida. Deaf ASL users (n = 92) were recruited during a 3-month period in summer 2018 and compared with a subset of data on hearing English speakers from the 2018 Florida Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (n = 12 589). We explored prevalence and adjusted odds of health behavior, including substance use and health care use.

RESULTS

Mental health was the top health concern among Deaf participants; 15.5% of participants screened as likely having a depressive disorder. Deaf people were 1.8 times more likely than hearing people to engage in binge drinking during the past month. In addition, 37.2% of participants reported being denied an interpreter in a medical facility in the past 12 months.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the need to work with Deaf ASL users to develop context-specific health education and health promotion activities tailored to their linguistic and cultural needs and ensure that they receive accessible health care and health education.

Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes Among Deaf or Hard of Hearing Women: Results From Nationally Representative Data

BACKGROUND

Although the literature suggests that women with disabilities are at increased risk for pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes, there are few population-based studies of the pregnancy outcomes among deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) women in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To compare pregnancy complications and neonatal outcomes between deliveries to DHH and non-DHH women using national hospitalization discharge record data.

STUDY DESIGN

We used the 2007-2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample to compare pregnancy complications and outcomes among deliveries to DHH women with deliveries to non-DHH women using bivariate and Poisson regressions, controlling for sociodemographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

DHH women had an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and chronic medical conditions, including preexisting diabetes (relative risk [RR], 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-2.42; p < .001), gestational diabetes (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.19-1.44; p < .001), chronic hypertension (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.33-1.72; p < .001), preeclampsia and eclampsia (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.21-1.51; p < .01), placenta previa (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.22-2.16; p < .01), placental abruption (RR, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.78; p < .01), labor induction (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; p < .01), chorioamnionitis (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.22-1.69; p < .001), cesarean delivery (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.14; p < .001), premature rupture of membranes (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.20-1.50; p < .001), antepartum hemorrhage (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.64; p < .001), and postpartum hemorrhage (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.13-1.49; p < .001). After adjustment for socioeconomic and hospital characteristics, the risk for gestational diabetes, preeclampsia and eclampsia, placenta previa, and chorioamnionitis remained unexplained.

CONCLUSIONS

DHH women are at an increased risk for adverse pregnancy, fetal, and neonatal outcomes, illuminating the need for awareness among obstetric and primary care providers as well as the need for systematic investigation of outcomes and evidence-based guidelines.