OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze published evidence on modes of communication between healthcare professionals and patients with hearing loss.
METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and Thai Journals Online Complete databases were searched. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Data on the prevalence and types of communication between healthcare professionals and patients with any extent of hearing loss were extracted.
RESULTS: Twenty studies were included. Using a hearing aid (pooled prevalence, 57.4%; 95% CI, 11.4%-103.4%, N = 3, I2 = 99.33) and gestures (pooled prevalence = 54.8%, 95%CI: 17.4% to 92.1%, N = 7, I2 = 99.68) were the most commonly reported modes of communication. Few healthcare professionals could use sign language, and limited access to qualified interpreters was common.
CONCLUSIONS: Communication barriers exist. Qualified sign language interpreters and assistive technology should be used to improve communication.

There is great variability in the ways in which the speech intelligibility of d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children who use spoken language as part, or all, of their communication system is measured. This systematic review examined the measures and methods that have been used when examining the speech intelligibility of children who are DHH and the characteristics of these measures and methods. A systematic database search was conducted of CENTRAL; CINAHL; Cochrane; ERIC; Joanna Briggs; Linguistics, Language and Behavior Abstracts; Medline; Scopus; and Web of Science databases, as well as supplemental searches. A total of 204 included studies reported the use of many different measures/methods which measured segmental aspects of speech, with the most common being Allen et al.\'s (2001, The reliability of a rating scale for measuring speech intelligibility following pediatric cochlear implantation. Otology and Neurotology, 22(5), 631-633. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129492-200109000-00012) Speech Intelligibility Rating scale. Many studies included insufficient details to determine the measure that was used. Future research should utilize methods/measures with known psychometric validity, provide clear descriptions of the methods/measures used, and consider using more than one measure to account for limitations inherent in different methods of measuring the speech intelligibility of children who are DHH, and consider and discuss the rationale for the measure/method chosen.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with special needs requiring special care are more vulnerable to oral health problems. Sign language is a communication medium and language of instruction for individuals with hearing impairments. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of sign language-based educational interventions compared to other educational interventions in improving the oral health of hearing-impaired individuals.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched without any restriction on the publication date. Analytical and experimental studies that evaluated and compared the effectiveness of sign language with other educational intervention groups such as videos, posters etc were included.
RESULTS: Initially, 5568 records were identified. Three relevant publications from India were eligible and included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Differences were reported in favour of sign language over other interventions concerning plaque status, gingival health, and oral hygiene status.
CONCLUSIONS: Sign language-based interventions were found to be effective. However, further studies in different locations and populations are required to support their effectiveness.

UNASSIGNED: Early diagnosis and intervention of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children leads to improved language and psychosocial outcomes. However, many child, parent and provider related factors can influence access to early intervention services, including hearing devices. This narrative review aims to explore factors that influence health service access in DHH children.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search was conducted to identify articles that explored factors that influenced health service access in DHH children in countries with Universal Newborn Hearing Screening, published between 2010 and 2022.
UNASSIGNED: Fifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. This included 4 systematic reviews, 2 reviews, 39 quantitative and 5 mixed methods studies and 9 qualitative studies.
UNASSIGNED: The identified factors were grouped into the following themes: (a) demographic factors, (b) family related factors, (c) child related factors, (d) factors specific to hearing devices, (e) service delivery, f) telehealth and (g) COVID-19.
UNASSIGNED: This review provided a comprehensive summary of multiple factors that affect access to health services in DHH children. Psychosocial support, consistent clinical advice, allocation of resources to rural communities and use of telehealth are possible ways to address barriers and improve health service access.

OBJECTIVE: People with hearing impairment (HI) prefer visual learning strategies in daily activities owing to their reliance on vision. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of visual learning as a communication strategy in improving oral hygiene and dental care of children and adolescents with HI.
RESULTS: Four electronic databases were searched and complemented by hand searching for original intervention studies published till December 2021. Eligible studies were screened, data was extracted as per priori data collection form and analyzed by thematic content analysis. The quality of studies was assessed as per the validated tools appropriate for study designs including ROB2, ROBINS-I, and NIH quality assessment tool. Out of 4159 records identified and 1302 duplicates removed, 24 original studies were identified and the visual learning strategies were classified into sign language, visual aids with or without sign language, customized educational demonstrations and the interim role of training the teachers. These strategies helped in improving oral hygiene status, oral health-related knowledge and attitude as well as dental anxiety during treatment. Participants were found to be satisfied with these strategies, however, significant heterogeneity in the included studies precluded meaningful meta-analysis. ROB2 and ROBINS were rated as high and serious in all included trials, respectively, and NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Pre-Post Studies With No Control as fair in five studies and poor in three.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings emphasize the significance of visual learning, however, long-term rigorously designed trials are needed to better understand effective and patient-centered communication methods for people with HI.

Patients affected from hearing loss face many problems when visiting oncologists. We conducted a systematic review to survey if cancer education programs can promote health literacy among deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) patients. The authors searched two databases for RCTs, and cohort studies with interventions promoting cancer health literacy for adult DHH patients. Risk of bias was assessed with SIGN Methodology Checklist for RCTs, and cohort studies. Significance of mean changes over time, and mean differences between comparison groups were used to present outcomes of each study. Surveyed interventions addressed three domains: cancer knowledge, coping skills, and cancer screening. Key information was gathered and synthesized providing a juxtaposition of the content and presenting important effects in detail. Nine RCTs and seven cohorts with 1865 participants were included. In total, 13 studies showed that cancer health literacy interventions improved mean scores significantly from pre- to post-test measures. There are hints that captioning and written texts may be sufficient for milder forms of hearing loss. Three studies showed that resiliency skill training promotes various domains of well-being. Three studies indicated that educational interventions encourage cancer screening practices. Educational programs are an effective way to promote cancer health literacy among DHH patients to facilitate communication with oncologists. As extent of hearing loss was not assessed, the authors cannot say the degree to which results are applicable to all degrees of hearing loss. To obtain hard data, further studies with more diverse populations, various cancer entities, different methods, and exact hearing loss assessments are required.

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.
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.
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.
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.

Persons who are deaf are more likely to avoid health care providers than those who can hear, partially because of the lack of means of communication with these providers and the dearth of available interpreters. The use of video remote interpretation, namely the video camera on an electronic device, to connect deaf patients and health providers has rapidly expanded owing to its flexibility and advantageous cost compared with in-person sign language interpretation. Thus, we need to learn more about how this technology could effectively engage with and respond to the priorities of its users.
We aimed to identify existing evidence regarding the use of video remote interpretation (VRI) in health care settings and to assess whether VRI technology can enable deaf users to overcome barriers to interpretation and improve communication outcomes between them and health care personnel.
We conducted a search in 7 medical research databases (including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar) from 2006 including bibliographies and citations of relevant papers. The searches included articles in English, Spanish, and French. The eligibility criteria for study selection included original articles on the use of VRI for deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) sign language users for, or within, health care.
From the original 176 articles identified, 120 were eliminated after reading the article title and abstract, and 41 articles were excluded after they were fully read. In total, 15 articles were included in this study: 4 studies were literature reviews, 4 were surveys, 3 were qualitative studies, and 1 was a mixed methods study that combined qualitative and quantitative data, 1 brief communication, 1 quality improvement report, and 1 secondary analysis. In this scoping review, we identified a knowledge gap regarding the quality of interpretation and training in sign language interpretation for health care. It also shows that this area is underresearched, and evidence is scant. All evidence came from high-income countries, which is particularly problematic given that most DHH persons live in low- and middle-income countries.
Furthering our understanding of the use of VRI technology is pertinent and relevant. The available literature shows that VRI may enable deaf users to overcome interpretation barriers and can potentially improve communication outcomes between them and health personnel within health care services. For VRI to be acceptable, sign language users require a VRI system supported by devices with large screens and a reliable internet connection, as well as qualified interpreters trained on medical interpretation.

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) patients are an underserved priority population. Existing, although contextually limited, findings indicate that DHH patients are more likely to use the emergency department (ED) than non-DHH patients. However, little attention has been given to the differences in ED utilization by patients\' language modalities.
We hypothesized that DHH ASL-users and DHH English speakers would have higher rates of ED utilization in the past 36 months than non-DHH English speakers.
We used a retrospective chart review design using data from a large academic medical center in the southeastern United States. In total, 277 DHH ASL-users, 1000 DHH English speakers, and 1000 non-DHH English speakers were included. We used logistic regression and zero-inflated modeling to assess relations between patient segment and ED utilization in the past 12- and 36-months. We describe primary ED visit diagnosis codes using AHRQ Clinical Classifications Software.
DHH ASL users and DHH English speakers had higher adjusted odds ratios of using the ED in the past 36-months than non-DHH English speakers (aORs = 1.790 and 1.644, respectively). Both DHH ASL users and DHH English speakers had a higher frequency of ED visits among patients who used the ED in the past 36-months (61.0% and 70.1%, respectively). The most common principal diagnosis code was for abdominal pain, with DHH English speakers making up over half of all abdominal pain encounters.
DHH ASL users and DHH English speakers are at higher risk of using the ED compared to non-DHH English speakers. We call for additional attention on DHH patients in health services and ED utilization research.

To conduct critical assessment of the literature on the effects of cochlear implantation on adults\' cognitive abilities.
PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs, Web of Science, Livivo, Cochrane, Embase, PsycInfo, and grey literature were searched. Eligibility criteria: age 18 or over with severe-to-profound bilateral hearing loss, cochlear implantation, cognitive test before and after implantation. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB, ROBINS-I and MASTARI tools. Meta-analysis was performed.
Out of 1830 studies, 16 met the inclusion criteria.
On AlaCog test, significant improvement was found after implantation [MD = -46.64; CI95% = -69.96 to -23.33; I2 = 71%]. No significant differences were found on the Flanker, Recall, Trail A and n-back tests (p > 0.05). For MMSE, no significance was found [MD 0.63; CI 95% = -2.19 to 3.45; I2 = 88%]. On TMT, an overall significant effect with a 9-second decrease in processing speed post-implantation [MD = -9.43; CI95% = -15.42 to -3.44; I2 = 0%].
Cognitive improvements after cochlear implantation may depend on time and the cognitive task evaluated. Well-designed studies with longer follow-up are necessary to examine whether cochlear implantation has a positive influence on cognitive abilities. Development of cognitive assessment tools to hearing-impaired individuals is needed.