Deaf adults at higher risk for severe illness: COVID-19 information preference and perceived health consequences

Examining the differences of perceptions and experience with online health information accessibility between deaf and hearing individuals: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Describe and compare the experiences and preferences of Deaf and hearing individuals with different levels of health literacy in accessing, interpreting, and acting upon online health information.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 Deaf and 10 hearing participants with high and low health literacy from three healthcare sites. We conducted thematic analysis of the transcripts to explore information navigation experiences, information sources and dissemination preferences.

RESULTS

We found thematic differences between Deaf and hearing participants with high and low health literacy in terms of information needs, information search experiences, information search perceptions, and preferred information dissemination approaches. Relative to hearing counterparts, Deaf participants were more likely to encounter challenges in accessing and understanding online information. Deaf participants with low health literacy were more likely to rely on visual graphics to support their understanding of the information than those with high health literacy. Deaf participants advocated for tailored approaches to disseminate health information to Deaf communities.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that differences in online health information navigation experiences and accessibility may inform disparities in health literacy outcomes between Deaf and hearing individuals.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Online health information should be presented in a manner accessible to Deaf community members.

Communication inequalities and health disparities among vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic - a scoping review of qualitative and quantitative evidence

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated health disparities in vulnerable groups (e.g., increased infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates in people with lower income, lower education, or ethnic minorities). Communication inequalities can act as mediating factors in this relationship. Understanding this link is vital to prevent communication inequalities and health disparities in public health crises. This study aims to map and summarize the current literature on communication inequalities linked with health disparities (CIHD) in vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify research gaps.

METHODS

A scoping review of quantitative and qualitative evidence was conducted. The literature search followed the guidelines of PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and was performed on PubMed and PsycInfo. Findings were summarized using a conceptual framework based on the Structural Influence Model by Viswanath et al. RESULTS: The search yielded 92 studies, mainly assessing low education as a social determinant and knowledge as an indicator for communication inequalities. CIHD in vulnerable groups were identified in 45 studies. The association of low education with insufficient knowledge and inadequate preventive behavior was the most frequently observed. Other studies only found part of the link: communication inequalities (n = 25) or health disparities (n = 5). In 17 studies, neither inequalities nor disparities were found.

CONCLUSIONS

This review supports the findings of studies on past public health crises. Public health institutions should specifically target their communication to people with low education to reduce communication inequalities. More research about CIHD is needed on groups with migrant status, financial hardship, not speaking the language in the country of residence, sexual minorities, and living in deprived neighborhoods. Future research should also assess communication input factors to derive specific communication strategies for public health institutions to overcome CIHD in public health crises.

Equitable Access to Telehealth and Other Services for Deaf People During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction

Deaf people who use American Sign Language (ASL) with low self-perceived ability to understand spoken information face inequitable access to health care due to systemic barriers.

Methods

We conducted interviews with 266 deaf ASL users at baseline (May-Aug 2020) and 244 deaf ASL users at follow-up (3 months). Questions addressed (1) access to interpretation during in-person visits; (2) whether they visited clinics (3) or emergency departments (EDs); and (4) telehealth use. Analyses involved univariate and multivariable logistic regressions across levels of perceived ability to understand spoken language.

Results

Less than a third were aged >65 (22.8%); Black, Indigenous, People of Color (28.6%), or LGBTQ+ (31.1%); and had no college degree (30.6%). More respondents reported outpatient visits at follow-up (63.9%) than at baseline (42.3%). Ten more respondents reported going to urgent care or an ED at follow-up than at baseline. At follow-up interviews, 57% of deaf ASL respondents with high perceived ability to understand spoken language reported receiving interpretation at clinic visits compared to 32% of ASL respondents with low perceived ability to understand spoken language (p<0.01). Telehealth and ED visits showed no between-group differences for low versus high perceived ability to understand spoken language.

Discussion

Our study is the first to explore deaf ASL users' access to telehealth and outpatient encounters over time during the pandemic. The U.S. health care system is designed for people who have high perceived ability to understand spoken information. Systemic access to health care, including telehealth and clinics, must be made consistently equitable for deaf people who require accessible communication.

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.].

If online learning works for you, what about deaf students? Emerging challenges of online learning for deaf and hearing-impaired students during COVID-19: a literature review

With the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, educational systems worldwide were abruptly affected and hampered, causing nearly total suspension of all in-person activities in schools, colleges, and universities. Government officials prohibited the physical gatherings in educational institutions to reduce the spread of the virus. Therefore, educational institutions have aggressively shifted to alternative learning methods and strategies such as online-based platforms-to seemingly avoid the disruption of education. However, the switch from the face-to-face setting to an entirely online setting introduced a series of challenges, especially for the deaf or hard-of-hearing students. Various recent studies have revealed the underlying infrastructure used by academic institutions may not be suitable for students with hearing impairments. The goal of this study is to perform a literature review of these studies and extract the pressing challenges that deaf and hard-of-hearing students have been facing since their transition to the online setting. We conducted a systematic literature review of 34 articles that were carefully collected, retrieved, and rigorously categorized from various scholarly databases. The articles, included in this study, focused primarily on highlighting high-demanding issues that deaf students experienced in higher education during the pandemic. This study contributes to the research literature by providing a detailed analysis of technological challenges hindering the learning experience of deaf students. Furthermore, the study extracts takeaways and proposed solutions, from the literature, for researchers, education specialists, and higher education authorities to adopt. This work calls for investigating broader and yet more effective teaching and learning strategies for deaf and hard-of-hearing students so that they can benefit from a better online learning experience.

External Communication Barriers among Elderly Deaf and Hard of Hearing People in China during the COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Isolation: A Qualitative Study

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a great risk to older people with hearing impairment, who face a higher threshold of external communication after the implementation of the emergency isolation policy. As part of a study on the optimization of external communication among the deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) population in central China, this study employed a qualitative research method based on in-depth interviews to explore the needs and difficulties faced by the older DHH group in external communication during public health emergencies in Wuhan, China, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that older DHH people had weak reception of critical information about the epidemic, and had suboptimal access to medical care during emergency quarantine, which increased interpersonal communication barriers to this group. The current findings highlight the urgent need for targeted strengthening of the original emergency communication and coordination mechanisms in public health emergencies, and for improving policy inclusiveness for older DHH individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic and emergencies alike.

Using Gaze Tracking as a Research Tool in the Deaf Health Literacy and Access to Health Information Project: Protocol for a Multisite Mixed Methods Study and Preliminary Results

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have identified the internet as a major source of health information. Reliable and accessible sources of web-based health information are critical for cultivating patient-centered care. However, the accessibility and use of web-based health information remains largely unknown for deaf individuals. We used gaze-tracking technology to understand the navigation and use of web-based health information by deaf adults who communicate with sign language and by hearing adults.

OBJECTIVE

This paper discusses our protocol for implementing gaze-tracking technology in a study that included both deaf and hearing participants. We report the preliminary results and lessons learned from the implementation of the protocol.

METHODS

We conducted gaze-tracking sessions with 450 deaf signers and 450 hearing participants as a part of a larger, multisite mixed methods research study. Then, we conducted qualitative elicitation interviews with a subsample of 21 deaf and 13 hearing participants, who engaged in a search task and reviewed their gaze recordings. To our knowledge, no study has implemented a similar research protocol to better understand the experiences of deaf adults. As such, we also examined research staff notes and observations from team meetings regarding the conduct of gaze-tracking data to delineate lessons learned and best practices for research protocols in this area.

RESULTS

Findings from the implementation of this study protocol highlight the use of gaze technology with deaf participants. We developed additional protocol steps to minimize gaze disruption from either lipreading or communicating in sign language. For example, research assistants were often unable to maintain eye contact with participants while signing because of the need to simultaneously point at the computer monitor to provide instructions related to gaze study components, such as the calibration process. In addition to developing ways to effectively provide instructions in American Sign Language, a practice exercise was included in the gaze tracker session to familiarize participants with the computer and technology. The use of the playback feature permitted a deeper dialogue between researchers and participants, which we found vital for understanding the experiences of deaf participants.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of our experience using the study protocol through a large research project, incorporating gaze-tracking technology offers beneficial avenues for better understanding how individuals interact with health information. Gaze tracking can determine the type and placement of visual content that attracts attention from the viewers of diverse backgrounds, including deaf individuals. The lessons learned through this study will help future researchers in determining ideal study designs, such as suitable protocols and participant characteristics (eg, deaf signers), while including gaze trackers in their projects. This approach explored how different ways of presenting health information can affect or enable visual learners to engage and use health information effectively.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/26708.