ArticleCureus2024
Perceptions of Automatic External Defibrillator Use and Accessibility in the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Populations of the United States.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The use of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) by lay rescuers can reduce the time to defibrillation and improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). AEDs use voice prompts to guide users through the defibrillation process, creating a potential barrier for deaf and hard-of-hearing (HoH) individuals. The objective of this study is to assess familiarity with and concerns regarding AED use among members of these communities. Methods A 19-question Qualtrics survey was distributed to adults in the United States who self-identified as deaf or HoH. The questions included seven demographics, eight yes/no/unsure, three Likert scales, and one multiple-response question. Quantitative analysis was performed using 95% confidence intervals to compare familiarity with and concerns about AED use among deaf, HoH, and combined groups of respondents. Results Of the responses, 500 met the inclusion criteria; 130 (26%) self-identified as deaf, and 370 (74%) self-identified as HoH. Around 460 (92%) were in the 18-40 age group. AED recognition was high among both deaf (90.77%) and HoH (84.59%) respondents, though deaf respondents were less likely than HoH respondents to have seen an AED in a public place (p=0.03) or know how to safely use one (p=0.001). In both the deaf and HoH groups, the top concern regarding AED use was that AEDs were too technical or complicated (61.86% and 56.8%). Of all respondents, 36.4% reported that AEDs were not user-friendly (p=0.034). All participants identified some concerns regarding AED use in emergencies. In addition, 56.15% of deaf and 39.19% of HoH respondents were concerned that AED use is potentially dangerous (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in knowing when to use an AED or where to find more information about AEDs. Conclusion Deaf and HoH people have specific concerns about AEDs, including the safety and complexity of operating an AED and the accessibility (user-friendliness). In this study, the deaf population is less familiar with using an AED than the HoH population. Possible interventions to address concerns of the deaf and HoH communities include AED training given in American Sign Language (ASL) and updating AED designs with improved visual and non-verbal directions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.