Back to all available

Are Healthcare Providers Ready to Use Sign Language?

health-policy
nursing
public-health
healthcare-services

Abstract

Background. Communicating using sign language between health care providers and deaf and/or hearing-impaired patients was reported to be difficult and can compromise the delivery of care. We aimed to find out how healthcare providers, especially nurses, perceive the effect of sign language knowledge on the provision of care to deaf and hearing-impairment patients. Methods. Cross-sectional descriptive study included nurses and other health specialties from hospitals and primary care centers. The questionnaire was distributed via email and WhatsApp. Results. 238 participated, 180 (75.6%) were nurses, 58 were from other health specialties. Only 15 (6.3%) claimed to have received formal training in sign language. The majority (n=165, 69.3%) perceived that learning sign language is very important, whereas 65 (27.3%) perceived that somewhat important. A greater proportion of nurses believed that the quality of health service is impacted by the inability to communicate effectively and deliver high quality of care without the knowledge, understanding and use of sign language compared to other professionals (p=0.016), nurses believed that knowing sign language would improve the quality of care to deaf and hearing-impairment patients compared to other HCPs (97.2% vs. 87.9%, p=0.005). Conclusion. To provide deaf and hearing-impairment patients with high-quality healthcare, nurses believe that understanding sign language is essential. Nonetheless, relatively few nurses received formal training in sign language, and even fewer have adequate knowledge of the subject. To provide the highest care, it is necessary to improve communication with those patients, in line with the World Health Organization's Universal Health Coverage and "health care for all."
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.