ArticlePLOS global public health2025
What are Deaf sign language users' experiences as patients in healthcare services? A scoping review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What is the efficacy and effectiveness of telemedicine intervention for deaf signing populations in comparison to face-to-face interventions? A systematic review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Through deaf eyes: factors influencing suicidal behavior among deaf adults.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2026Article
- Health literacy of the Deaf community: a scoping review.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2026Article
- Communication barriers for d/Deaf people with cancer: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Beyond accommodation: institutional and policy drivers of healthcare equity for signing deaf adults.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Digital Health Communication for Deaf Individuals: Scoping Review of Technologies, Strategies, and Outcomes.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Deaf people's experience of the digital transformation of UK healthcare services: a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Depression and associated factors among primary school adolescents with hearing impairment in Kampala district, Uganda: A cross-sectional study.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Reducing health inequalities in the deaf community: a priority setting exercise.BMC health services research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeaf people who use a signed language experience poorer physical and mental health outcomes and inequalities in access and delivery of health services.
objectivesA scoping review was conducted to identify and synthesise current knowledge on the perspectives of Deaf people and their experience of healthcare. SEARCH STRATEGY: Databases PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL were used for this review. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Any studies internationally of any design that involve Deaf signing populations that reported on patient experience within healthcare settings from a Deaf perspective were included in the review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The abstract, title, and initial screening was followed by full text screening completed by two screeners independently. The extracted data included descriptive data and study findings. The Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT) was applied, and findings were summarised using narrative synthesis. MAIN
resultsAcross the 51 included papers, problems with language, communication and interaction featured prominently. Failure to meet Deaf people's needs has adverse impacts; examples of these include negative emotional state, disempowerment through lack of knowledge, and lack of confidence in healthcare systems. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe review uniquely focused on data generated from Deaf people regarding their experience, rather than third party commentary. It confirmed a less than optimal Deaf patient experience, clinical impacts of poor experience, and negative patient and healthcare systems outcomes. This supports the case for a reliable and valid measure in a signed language to capture Deaf patients' experience in healthcare.
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.