ArticlePeerJ2025
Sign language use in healthcare: professionals' insight.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Communication using sign language (SL) between health care providers (HCPs) and deaf and/or hearing-impaired (DHI) patients was reported to be difficult and oftentimes results in a compromised delivery of quality health care to patients. This study surveyed Saudi health care providers on their perception of SL knowledge on the provision of high-quality care to DHI patients. Methods: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study among HCPs in different health and primary care centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was distributed officially by the Department of Surveys of King Saud University to target HCPs via email and through WhatsApp. Results: A total of 238 HCPs were included in the study, of whom 180 (75.6%) were nursing professionals and 58 were from other health specialties. Only 15 (6.3%) of HCPs claimed to have received formal training in SL. Majority of the HCPs ( Conclusion: In order to provide DHI patients with high-quality healthcare, nurses believe that understanding SL is essential. Few nurses received formal training and few have adequate knowledge in SL. There is a need to provide nurses and HCPs adequate training in SL to improve communication with DHI patients and enhance DHI inclusivity in their management in line with the World Health Organization's Universal Health Coverage and "health care for all".
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.