Skip to main content
Log in

Improvements in preventive care and communication for deaf patients

Results of a novel primary health care program

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schein JD, Delk MT. The deaf population of the United States. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf. 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reisman G. Medical interpreting for hearing-impaired patients. JAMA. 1977;237:2397–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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 

  7. Ronco G. Segnan N, Ponti A. Who has Pap tests? Variables associated with the use of Pap test in the absence of screening programmes. Int J Epidemiol. 1991;20:349–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Centers for Disease Control. Use of mammography for breast cancer screening—Rhode Island. 1987. MMWR. 1988;7:357–61.

    Google Scholar 

  9. National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Screening Consortium. Screening mammography: a missed clinical opportunity? JAMA. 1990;264:54–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lass L, Franklin R. Bertrand W, Baker J. Health knowledge, attitudes and practices of the deaf population in greater New Orleans-a pilot study. Am Ann Deaf. 1978;123:960–7.

    PubMed  CAS  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.

  14. Sawyer J, Earp J, Fletcher R, Daye F. Wynn T. Accuracy of women’s self-report of their last Pap smear. Am J Public Health. 1989;79:1036–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Walter S. Clarke E. Hatcher J, Stitt L. A comparison of physician and patient reports of Pap smear histories. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:401–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacKinney, T.G., Walters, D., Bird, G.L. et al. Improvements in preventive care and communication for deaf patients. J Gen Intern Med 10, 133–137 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599667

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599667

Key words

Navigation