Improvements in preventive care and communication for deaf patients
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that profoundly deaf persons would have better preventive care compliance and improved physician communication if enrolled in a primary care program providing American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters.
DESIGN: A case-cohort community-based study. The authors had ASL-fluent research assistants interview 90 randomly selected patients (the cases) enrolled in a unique primary care program for the deaf (Deaf Services Program), which provided full-tune ASL interpreters and subsidized health care costs for some patients. Eighty-five deaf controls were friends of the cases drawn from the community.
RESULTS: The cases were poorer and less often married than were the controls, but other baseline characteristics were similar. The cases were more likely (p<0.05) to report receiving within the preceding three years Pap tests (90% vs 72%), mammography (86% vs 53%), and rectal examinations (72% vs 25%), but not breast examinations (76% vs 71%, p=0.7). The cases were more likely than the controls to report receiving counseling in ASL for psychiatric and substance abuse problems (49% vs 5%, p<0.001). Although only 18% of the controls were fluent in written English, 67% of them used written notes to communicate with their physicians. Twenty percent of the controls used ASL interpreters compared with 84% of the cases (p<0.001). More cases than controls were moderately or extremely satisfied with communication with their physicians (92% vs 42%, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Deaf persons enrolled in a primary care program that included full-time interpreters were more likely to use ASL, were more satisfied with physician communications, and had improved preventive care outcomes.
Key wordsdeaf services prevention physician-patient communication patient compliance
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Schein JD, Delk MT. The deaf population of the United States. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf. 1974.Google Scholar
- 3.Silverman SR. Rehabilitative audiology. In: Paparella MM, Shumrick DA. Gluckman JL, Meyerhoff WL (eds). Otolaryngology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. 1991;1005–15.Google Scholar
- 4.Schein J. Delk M. Survey of health care for deaf people. Deaf Am. 1980;32:5–27.Google Scholar
- 5.Schlesselman J. Case—Control Studies. New York: Oxford Press. 1982;77.Google Scholar
- 6.Wachman S. McLaughlin JK. Silverman DT, Mandel JS. Selection of controls in case-control studies, I: Principles. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:1019–28.Google Scholar
- 8.Centers for Disease Control. Use of mammography for breast cancer screening—Rhode Island. 1987. MMWR. 1988;7:357–61.Google Scholar
- 11.Kleinig D. Mohay H. A comparison of the health knowledge of hearing-impaired and hearing high school students. Am Ann Deaf. 1990;134:246–51.Google Scholar
- 12.Nemon A. Deaf persons and their doctors. J Rehabil Deaf. 1980;14:19–23.Google Scholar
- 13.Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 28 CFR 36.102–36.104.Google Scholar