ArticleAfrican journal of disability2024
South African parents' views on oral, signing, and bilingual communication for Deaf or hard-of-hearing children.
Article in African journal of disability, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cochlear Implant Decisions in South Africa: Parental Views, Barriers, and Influences.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Parents of Deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) children are faced with a plethora of overwhelming decisions concerning their children, particularly during the early stages of development. Among these decisions are those concerning assistive devices and the modes of communication for their child. Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of parents of DHH children towards the various modes of communication for their children within the South African context. Method: The study adopted a Q-methodology research design. Participants rated statements according to what they least and most agree with and then answered follow-up questions concerning the statements. Participants were also invited to participate in a live, one-on-one, semi-structured interview with the researcher. Data were analysed through both qualitative and quantitative statistics. Thematic analysis was adopted to analyse the qualitative data, while factor analysis through Ken-Q analysis was used for quantitative data. Results: Although 66% of participants thought that sign language allows DHH children to communicate more freely, 88% agreed that a DHH child should always learn to speak if they can. In terms of decision-making, 88% reported the issue of stigma or marginalisation and 88% cited the lack of Deaf schools as barriers in their decision-making. Conclusion: The study's findings provide valuable insights into the complex interplay of factors influencing communication mode decisions for DHH children in South Africa. Contribution: These insights are crucial for developing inclusive and effective communication strategies that consider individual needs, societal norms and access to support services.
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.