BACKGROUND: Deaf persons, a documented minority population, have low reading levels and difficulty communicating with physicians. The effect of these on their knowledge of cancer prevention recommendations is unknown. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 222 d/Deaf persons in Michigan, age 18 and older, chose one of four ways (voice, video of a certified American Sign Language interpreter, captions, or printed English) to complete a self-administered computer video questionnaire about demographics, hearing loss, language history, health-care utilization, and health-care information sources, as well as family and social variables. Twelve questions tested their knowledge of cancer prevention recommendations. The outcome measures were the percentage of correct answers to the questions and the association of multiple variables with these responses. RESULTS: Participants averaged 22.9% correct answers with no gender difference. Univariate analysis revealed that smoking history, types of medical problems, last physician visit, and women having previous cancer preventive tests did not affect scores. Improved scores occurred with computer use (p = 0.05), higher education (p < 0.01) and income (p = 0.01), hearing spouses (p < 0.01), speaking English in multiple situations (p < 0.001), and in men with previous prostate cancer testing (p = 0.04). Obtaining health information from books (p = 0.05), physicians (p = 0.008), nurses (p = 0.03) or the internet (p = 0.02), and believing that smoking is bad (p < 0.001) also improved scores. Multivariate analysis revealed that English use (p = 0.01) and believing that smoking was bad (p = 0.05) were associated with improved scores. CONCLUSION: Persons with profound hearing loss have poor knowledge of recommended cancer prevention interventions. English use in multiple settings was strongly associated with increased knowledge.
BACKGROUND: Deaf persons, a documented minority population, have low reading levels and difficulty communicating with physicians. The effect of these on their knowledge of cancer prevention recommendations is unknown. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 222 d/Deaf persons in Michigan, age 18 and older, chose one of four ways (voice, video of a certified American Sign Language interpreter, captions, or printed English) to complete a self-administered computer video questionnaire about demographics, hearing loss, language history, health-care utilization, and health-care information sources, as well as family and social variables. Twelve questions tested their knowledge of cancer prevention recommendations. The outcome measures were the percentage of correct answers to the questions and the association of multiple variables with these responses. RESULTS:Participants averaged 22.9% correct answers with no gender difference. Univariate analysis revealed that smoking history, types of medical problems, last physician visit, and women having previous cancer preventive tests did not affect scores. Improved scores occurred with computer use (p = 0.05), higher education (p < 0.01) and income (p = 0.01), hearing spouses (p < 0.01), speaking English in multiple situations (p < 0.001), and in men with previous prostate cancer testing (p = 0.04). Obtaining health information from books (p = 0.05), physicians (p = 0.008), nurses (p = 0.03) or the internet (p = 0.02), and believing that smoking is bad (p < 0.001) also improved scores. Multivariate analysis revealed that English use (p = 0.01) and believing that smoking was bad (p = 0.05) were associated with improved scores. CONCLUSION:Persons with profound hearing loss have poor knowledge of recommended cancer prevention interventions. English use in multiple settings was strongly associated with increased knowledge.
Authors: Annie G Steinberg; Erin A Wiggins; Carlin Henry Barmada; Vicki Joy Sullivan Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Michael M McKee; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Paul C Winters; Kevin Fiscella; Philip Zazove; Ananda Sen; Thomas Pearson Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2015
Authors: Philip Zazove; Melissa A Plegue; Michael M McKee; Melissa DeJonckheere; Paul R Kileny; Lauren S Schleicher; Lee A Green; Ananda Sen; Mary E Rapai; Elie Mulhem Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Christina G S Palmer; Patrick Boudreault; Barbara A Berman; Alicia Wolfson; Lionel Duarte; Vickie L Venne; Janet S Sinsheimer Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Honey Nagakura; Gretchen Schneider; James Morris; Katherine A Lafferty; Christina G S Palmer Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Michael McKee; Denise Thew; Matthew Starr; Poorna Kushalnagar; John T Reid; Patrick Graybill; Julia Velasquez; Thomas Pearson Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2012
Authors: Barbara A Berman; Angela Jo; William G Cumberland; Heidi Booth; Jon Britt; Carolyn Stern; Philip Zazove; Gary Kaufman; Georgia Robins Sadler; Roshan Bastani Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2013-06-30 Impact factor: 2.554