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

Antenatal depression and drug use among deaf and hard-of-hearing birthing parents: results from a U.S. National Survey

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate antenatal depression and drug use among deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) birthing parents who use American Sign Language (ASL), spoken English, or bilingually both ASL and English.

METHODS

DHH participants in the United States responded to the Survey on Pregnancy Experiences of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Women. Respondents self-reported their antenatal depression diagnoses and drug use (i.e., pain relievers, cannabis, or illicit drugs) during their last pregnancy. Poisson regression models were used to estimate prevalence ratios, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, and parity.

RESULTS

The average age of respondents (n = 587) was 35 years. Respondents were predominantly non-Hispanic white (80%), college educated (60%), and married (74%). Relative to DHH English-speakers, DHH ASL-users had lower prevalence of reporting antenatal depression diagnosis (aPR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.72). DHH people who reported antenatal depression diagnosis had higher prevalence of reporting antenatal drug use (PR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.65 to 3.33). There were no significant associations between preferred language and antenatal drug use.

CONCLUSIONS

DHH ASL-users are less likely to report receiving an antenatal depression diagnosis compared to DHH English-speakers. Given well-documented patient-provider communication barriers among DHH ASL-users, it is unclear if the lower prevalence observed in this study is the result of inadequate or inaccessible screening during pregnancy. Future work should consider universal use of linguistically appropriate screening tools for DHH birthing parents in both clinical and research settings.

Health outcomes in Deaf signing populations: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

(i) To identify peer reviewed publications reporting the mental and/or physical health outcomes of Deaf adults who are sign language users and to synthesise evidence; (ii) If data available, to analyse how the health of the adult Deaf population compares to that of the general population; (iii) to evaluate the quality of evidence in the identified publications; (iv) to identify limitations of the current evidence base and suggest directions for future research.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and Web of Science.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

The inclusion criteria were Deaf adult populations who used a signed language, all study types, including methods-focused papers which also contain results in relation to health outcomes of Deaf signing populations. Full-text articles, published in peer-review journals were searched up to 13th June 2023, published in English or a signed language such as ASL (American Sign Language).

DATA EXTRACTION

Supported by the Rayyan systematic review software, two authors independently reviewed identified publications at each screening stage (primary and secondary). A third reviewer was consulted to settle any disagreements. Comprehensive data extraction included research design, study sample, methodology, findings, and a quality assessment.

RESULTS

Of the 35 included studies, the majority (25 out of 35) concerned mental health outcomes. The findings from this review highlighted the inequalities in health and mental health outcomes for Deaf signing populations in comparison with the general population, gaps in the range of conditions studied in relation to Deaf people, and the poor quality of available data.

CONCLUSIONS

Population sample definition and consistency of standards of reporting of health outcomes for Deaf people who use sign language should be improved. Further research on health outcomes not previously reported is needed to gain better understanding of Deaf people's state of health.

Emergency department patient-centred care perspectives from deaf and hard-of-hearing patients

BACKGROUND

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) patients are a priority population for emergency medicine health services research. DHH patients are at higher risk than non-DHH patients of using the emergency department (ED), have longer lengths of stay in the ED and report poor patient-provider communication. This qualitative study aimed to describe ED care-seeking and patient-centred care perspectives among DHH patients.

METHODS

This qualitative study is the second phase of a mixed-methods study. The goal of this study was to further explain quantitative findings related to ED outcomes among DHH and non-DHH patients. We conducted semistructured interviews with 4 DHH American Sign Language (ASL)-users and 6 DHH English speakers from North Central Florida. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a descriptive qualitative approach.

RESULTS

Two themes were developed: (1) DHH patients engage in a complex decision-making process to determine ED utilization and (2) patient-centred ED care differs between DHH ASL-users and DHH English speakers. The first theme describes the social-behavioural processes through which DHH patients assess their need to use the ED. The second theme focuses on the social environment within the ED: patients feeling stereotyped, involvement in the care process, pain communication, receipt of accommodations and discharge processes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the importance of better understanding, and intervening in, DHH patient ED care-seeking and care delivery to improve patient outcomes. Like other studies, this study also finds that DHH patients are not a monolithic group and language status is an equity-relevant indicator. We also discuss recommendations for emergency medicine.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study convened a community advisory group made up of four DHH people to assist in developing research questions, data collection tools and validation of the analysis and interpretation of data. Community advisory group members who were interested in co-authorship are listed in the byline, with others in the acknowledgements. In addition, several academic-based co-authors are also deaf or hard of hearing.

Reframing Our Health Care System for Patients With Hearing Loss

PURPOSE

Nearly 20% of U.S. Americans report a hearing loss, yet our current health care system is poorly designed and equipped to effectively care for these individuals. Individuals with hearing loss report communication breakdowns, inaccessible health information, reduced awareness and training by health care providers, and decreased satisfaction while struggling with inadequate health literacy. These all contribute to health inequities and increased health care expenditures and inefficiencies. It is time to reframe the health care system for these individuals using existing models of best practices and accessibility to mitigate inequities and improve quality of care.

METHOD

A review of system-, clinic-, provider-, and patient-level barriers, along with existing and suggested efforts to improve care for individuals with hearing loss, are presented.

RESULTS

These strategies include improving screening and identification of hearing loss, adopting universal design and inclusion principles, implementing effective communication approaches, leveraging assistive technologies and training, and diversifying a team to better care for patients with hearing loss. Patients should also be encouraged to seek social support and resources from hearing loss organizations while leveraging technologies to help facilitate communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The strategies described introduce actionable steps that can be made at the system, clinic, provider, and patient levels. With implementation of these steps, significant progress can be made to more proactively meet the needs of patients with hearing loss. Presentation Video: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21215843.

"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.

Promoting health equity for deaf patients through the electronic health record

Language status can be conceptualized as an equity-relevant variable, particularly for non-English-speaking populations. Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) individuals who use American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate comprise one such group and are understudied in health services research. DHH individuals are at high-risk of receiving lower-quality care due to ineffective patient-provider communication. This perspective outlines barriers to health equity research serving DHH ASL-users due to systems developed by large-scale informatics networks (eg, the Patient-Centered Clinical Outcomes Research Network), and institutional policies on self-serve cohort discovery tools. We list potential to help adequate capture of language status of DHH ASL-users to promote health equity for this population.