Mark J Myers1, Izabela E Annis2, Jan Withers3, Lee Williamson3, Kathleen C Thomas2,4. 1. Department of Government and Public Affairs, Gallaudet University. 2. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy. 3. Division of Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, NCDHHS. 4. Division of Research, Mountain Area Health Education Center; Mental Health Services Research Program, UNC Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which communication aids and services used by American Sign Language (ASL) users and their healthcare providers aligns with preferences, satisfaction, and unmet needs; and to elicit from stakeholders strategies to address disparities. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted of ASL users in North Carolina. Respondents completed an online survey presented in ASL and English (N = 189). McNemar's tests were used to compare rates of preferred and actual methods of communication. Logistic regression models explored relationships of accessible communication with dissatisfaction and unmet need. Qualitative interviews explored satisfaction with communication and reflections on what works, what does not, and outcomes (N = 54). RESULTS: While 45% of respondents used a professional sign language interpreter, 65% of respondents preferred to do so. Accessible communication was associated with lower odds of dissatisfaction with communication (OR = .19, p < .05). Dissatisfaction with communication was associated with greater odds of unmet need for healthcare (OR = 8.95, p < .05). Interview respondents emphasized their preference for on-site interpreters, explaining how video remote interpreting was subject to technical difficulties while writing back-and-forth led to important gaps in understanding. CONCLUSIONS: While ASL users prefer to use professional, on-site sign language interpreters to communicate with providers, most use some other form of communication instead. Findings emphasize the need for policy strategies to facilitate access to high quality, well-functioning professional interpreter services and to have those services delivered on-site to overcome disparities.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which communication aids and services used by American Sign Language (ASL) users and their healthcare providers aligns with preferences, satisfaction, and unmet needs; and to elicit from stakeholders strategies to address disparities. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted of ASL users in North Carolina. Respondents completed an online survey presented in ASL and English (N = 189). McNemar's tests were used to compare rates of preferred and actual methods of communication. Logistic regression models explored relationships of accessible communication with dissatisfaction and unmet need. Qualitative interviews explored satisfaction with communication and reflections on what works, what does not, and outcomes (N = 54). RESULTS: While 45% of respondents used a professional sign language interpreter, 65% of respondents preferred to do so. Accessible communication was associated with lower odds of dissatisfaction with communication (OR = .19, p < .05). Dissatisfaction with communication was associated with greater odds of unmet need for healthcare (OR = 8.95, p < .05). Interview respondents emphasized their preference for on-site interpreters, explaining how video remote interpreting was subject to technical difficulties while writing back-and-forth led to important gaps in understanding. CONCLUSIONS: While ASL users prefer to use professional, on-site sign language interpreters to communicate with providers, most use some other form of communication instead. Findings emphasize the need for policy strategies to facilitate access to high quality, well-functioning professional interpreter services and to have those services delivered on-site to overcome disparities.
Authors: Tyler G James; Michael M McKee; Meagan K Sullivan; Glenna Ashton; Stephen J Hardy; Yary Santiago; David G Phillips; JeeWon Cheong Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 3.117