Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40333900›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

"I always feel like I'm the first deaf person they have ever met:" Deaf Awareness, Accessibility and Communication in the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS): How can we do better?

Bhavisha Parmar, Helen Henshaw, Shahad Howe, Ann Marie Dickinson, Crystal Rolfe, Philip Le Mere, Emmanuelle Blondiaux-Ding, Zara Musker, Rachel Stevenson, Sarah E Hughes and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Experiences of culturally Deaf people with health care access and navigation in Ontario, Canada: a qualitative co-design study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Bhavisha ParmarSound Lab, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5772-5067
Helen HenshawBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0547-4403
Shahad HoweBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.
Ann Marie DickinsonBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.
Crystal RolfeBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.
Philip Le MereBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.
Emmanuelle Blondiaux-DingBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.
Zara MuskerBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.
Rachel StevensonBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.
Sarah E HughesBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.
Sian CalvertNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Hearing Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Emma StapletonBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.
Laura TurtonBritish Society of Audiology, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBarriers to communication significantly reduce access to health services for people with deafness or hearing loss (PDHL). These barriers contribute to reduced healthcare-seeking behaviour, poorer access to health information, and adverse health outcomes. In response, a multidisciplinary working group of patients, clinicians, researchers, and charity representatives was established to investigate accessibility, communication, and deaf awareness within the United Kingdom's (UK) National Health Service (NHS). METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional survey was conducted to explore the communication and accessibility experiences of PDHL NHS patients, and their perceived impact on well-being. The survey used rating scales and open-ended questions and data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The survey was made available in British Sign Language (BSL).

resultsThe online survey was completed by 556 PDHL, including 50 parents, carers, or family members who had accompanied PDHL friends or relatives to NHS appointments. All respondents had used NHS services within the last 24 months, with 10% identifying BSL as their preferred language. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses generated three key themes: 1) Accessibility challenges, 2) Impact of communication difficulties across the service pathway, and 3) Lack of consistent, effective deaf-aware communication. Overall, 64.4% of PDHL NHS patients reported missing 50% or more of the important information provided during their NHS appointments, and 32% were satisfied with the communication skills of healthcare staff.

conclusionThis study presents the largest UK-wide dataset of its kind, and findings highlight the widespread non-compliance with the legally mandated Accessible Information Standards (AIS) within NHS services. The communication barriers identified in this study have significant and long-term implications for the well-being of PDHL patients. Utilising these findings, our working group has developed a set of 'Recommendations For Change' to improve deaf awareness and effective communication across the NHS.

Indexed as

CommunicationCommunication BarriersDeafnessHealth Services AccessibilityPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSign LanguageState MedicineSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40333900
PMCPMC12057875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.