Search

Introduction: To reduce COVID-19 exposure risk, virtual visits became widely adopted as a common form of healthcare delivery for the general population. It is unknown how this affected the deaf population, a sociolinguistic minority group that continues to face communication and healthcare barriers. The survey's objective was to describe the deaf participants' experiences with telehealth visits., Methods: A 28-item online survey, available in American Sign Language and English, was developed and disseminated between November 2020 and January 2021. Ninety-nine deaf participants responded. Descriptive statistics were performed to assess the participant's virtual health care use, experiences, and communication approaches., Results: Seventy-five percent of respondents used telehealth at least once in the past 12 months (n = 74; age = 37.6 ± 14.5 years). Of those who used telehealth, nearly two-thirds experienced communication challenges (65.3%; n = 49). Half of the participants reported having to connect via a video relay service that employs interpreters who maintain general certification instead of a remote interpreter with specialized health care interpreting certifications for video visits with their health care providers (n = 37) and a third of participants reported needing to use their residual hearing to communicate with their providers (n = 25)., Conclusion: Standard protocols for health care systems and providers are needed to minimize the burden of access on deaf patients and ensure virtual visits are equitable. It is recommended these visits be offered on Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant platforms and include multi-way video to allow for the inclusion of remote medical interpreters and/or real-time captionists to ensure effective communication between the provider and the deaf patient occurs., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction: Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) women are faced with numerous health inequities, including adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. These outcomes are likely exacerbated for Black DHH women because of the intersection of disability and race. This study aimed to explore the pregnancy and birth experiences of Black DHH women to identify factors that influence their pregnancy outcomes., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted between 2018 and 2019 with 67 DHH women who gave birth in the past five years. The present study represents a subgroup analysis of eight of the 67 women who self-identified as Black. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for emerging themes., Results: Primary themes centered on unmet needs, barriers, and facilitators. Barriers included limited access to health information owing to communication difficulties and challenges obtaining accommodations. Key facilitators included the availability of sign language interpreters, familial support, and cultural understanding from providers. Participants emphasized these facilitators in their recommendations to providers and DHH women. Findings also underscored the critical role of recognizing cultural identity in perinatal health care delivery., Conclusions: This study outlines themes that affect pregnancy and birthing experiences among Black DHH women in the United States. Study implications include a call to action for providers to prioritize communication accommodations, accessible information, and compassionate care for all Black DHH women. Furthermore, future work should explore the impact of cultural and racial concordance between patients and their health care providers and staff. Understanding how intersectional identities affect perinatal health care access is crucial for reducing disparities among Black DHH women., (Copyright © 2023 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, George Washington University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Women who are deaf experience higher rates of reproductive healthcare barriers and adverse birth outcomes compared with their peers who can hear. This study explores the pregnancy experiences of women who are deaf to better understand their barriers to and facilitators of optimal pregnancy-related health care., Design: Qualitative study using thematic analysis., Setting: Semi-structured, individual, remote or in-person interviews conducted in the USA., Sample: Forty-five women who are deaf and communicate using American Sign Language (ASL) and gave birth in the USA within the past 5 years participated in the interviews., Methods: Semi-structured interviews explored how mothers who are deaf experienced pregnancy and birth, including access to perinatal information and resources, relationships with healthcare providers, communication access and their involvement with the healthcare system throughout pregnancy. A thematic analysis was conducted., Main Outcome Measures: Barriers and facilitators related to a positive experience of perinatal care access among women who are deaf., Results: Three major themes emerged: (1) communication accessibility; (2) communication satisfaction; and (3) healthcare provider and team support. Common barriers included choosing healthcare providers, inconsistent communication access and difficulty accessing health information. However, when women who are deaf were able to use ASL interpreters, they had more positive pregnancy and birth experiences. Self-advocacy served as a common facilitator for more positive pregnancy and healthcare experiences., Conclusions: Healthcare providers need to be more aware of the communication and support needs of their patients who are deaf, especially how to communicate effectively. Increased cultural awareness and consistent provision of on-site interpreters can improve pregnancy and birth experiences for women who are deaf., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Almost half of all pregnancies each year in the United States are mistimed or unwanted and associated with adverse health outcomes. Deaf women are as likely to be pregnant as their hearing counterparts but are 67% more likely to experience unintended pregnancy. Although there are limited data on the sexual health behaviors of deaf individuals, research has shown that deaf people are more likely than the general population to rely on withdrawal and condoms to prevent pregnancy. Further, health resources and communication with physicians are often not fully accessible, with the former often in spoken or written English and the latter when sign language interpreters are not present. The combination of use of less--effective methods of contraception and inaccessible health resources puts deaf women at heightened risk for unintended pregnancy. Deaf women are denied reproductive justice when they are inadequately equipped to practice bodily autonomy and prevent unintended pregnancies. In this commentary, I present literature to illustrate the disparity deaf women face compared with hearing women and to make the case for the association among unintended pregnancy, its adverse effects, and reproductive injustice for deaf women. As a medically trained deaf woman conducting reproductive health research, I leverage my lived experience and accrued knowledge to elucidate the shortcomings and strategies to use. As public health researchers and health care professionals, we can alleviate this injustice with inclusive research methodology, representation on research and health care teams, and ensuring access to health information with time given and accommodations provided., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The author did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective : We sought to identify current Emergency Medical Services (EMS) practitioner comfort levels and communication strategies when caring for the Deaf American Sign Language (ASL) user. Additionally, we created and evaluated the effect of an educational intervention and visual communication tool on EMS practitioner comfort levels and communication. Methods : This was a descriptive study assessing communication barriers at baseline and after the implementation of a novel educational intervention with cross-sectional surveys conducted at three time points (pre-, immediate-post, and three months post-intervention). Descriptive statistics characterized the study sample and we quantified responses from the baseline survey and both post-intervention surveys. Results : There were 148 EMS practitioners who responded to the baseline survey. The majority of participants (74%; 109/148) previously responded to a 9-1-1 call for a Deaf patient and 24% (35/148) reported previous training regarding the Deaf community. The majority felt that important details were lost during communication (83%; 90/109), reported that the Deaf patient appeared frustrated during an encounter (72%; 78/109), and felt that communication limited patient care (67%; 73/109). When interacting with a Deaf person, the most common communication strategies included written text (90%; 98/109), friend/family member (90%; 98/109), lip reading (55%; 60/109), and spoken English (50%; 55/109). Immediately after the training, most participants reported that the educational training expanded their knowledge of Deaf culture (93%; 126/135), communication strategies to use (93%; 125/135), and common pitfalls to avoid (96%; 129/135) when caring for Deaf patients. At 3 months, all participants (100%, 79/79) reported that the educational module was helpful. Some participants (19%, 15/79) also reported using the communication tool with other non-English speaking patients. Conclusions : The majority of EMS practitioners reported difficulty communicating with Deaf ASL users and acknowledged a sense of patient frustration. Nearly all participants felt the educational training was beneficial and clinically relevant; three months later, all participants found it to still be helpful. Additionally, the communication tool may be applicable to other populations that use English as a second language.

Background: Users of American Sign Language (ASL) who are deaf often face barriers receiving health information, contributing to significant gaps in health knowledge and health literacy. To reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its risk to the public, the government and health care providers have encouraged social distancing, use of face masks, hand hygiene, and quarantines. Unfortunately, COVID-19 information has rarely been available in ASL, which puts the deaf community at a disadvantage for accessing reliable COVID-19 information., Objective: This study's primary objective was to compare COVID-19-related information access between participants who are deaf and participants who are hearing., Methods: The study included 104 adults who are deaf and 74 adults who are hearing who had participated in a prior health literacy study. Surveys were conducted between April and July 2020 via video conference, smartphone apps, or phone calls. COVID-19 data were linked with preexisting data on demographic and health literacy data as measured by the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) and the ASL-NVS., Key Results: Neither group of participants differed in their ability to identify COVID-19 symptoms. Adults who are deaf were 4.7 times more likely to report difficulty accessing COVID-19 information ( p = .011), yet reported using more preventive strategies overall. Simultaneously, adults who are deaf had 60% lower odds of staying home and calling their doctor versus seeking health care immediately or doing something else compared with participants who are hearing if they suspected that they had COVID-19 ( p = .020)., Conclusions: Additional education on recommended COVID-19 management and guidance on accessible health care navigation strategies are needed for the deaf community and health care providers. Public health officials should ensure that public service announcements are accessible to all audiences and should connect with trusted agents within the deaf community to help disseminate health information online in ASL through their social media channels. [ HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice . 2021;5(2):e162-e170.] Plain Language Summary: Compared to participants who are hearing, a higher portion of participants who are deaf reported challenges with accessing, understanding, and trusting COVID-19 information. Although respondents who are deaf had similar knowledge of symptoms compared to participants who are hearing, they used more prevention strategies and were more likely to plan immediate care for suspected symptoms. Improved guidance on COVID-19 management and health care navigation accessible to the deaf community is needed.