ArticlePatient education and counseling2026
Predictors of health literacy among Deaf American Sign Language users.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health literacy of the Deaf community: a scoping review.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- "We Don't Have Access to the Village": Barriers and Facilitators to Optimal Parenting Experiences Among Deaf Parents.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveHealth literacy is an important predictor of individuals' health, medical adherence, and health-related decision making. This study investigated the predictors of health literacy among Deaf American Sign Language (ASL) users.
methods408 Deaf ASL users and 445 Hearing English speakers were administered the Newest Vital Sign, a measure of health literacy available in both English and ASL, along with assessments of language proficiency and reading skills.
resultsDeaf participants had 3.7 times greater odds of inadequate health literacy (95 % CI: 2.7, 4.9) compared to their hearing counterparts. Binary logistic regression revealed that Deaf participants' ASL proficiency and English reading grade equivalent explained 34.2 % (Nagelkerke R
conclusionsDeaf people are at risk for having greater difficulty to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Health professionals and health systems should allocate resources to mitigate health literacy barriers among Deaf people and make health information more available in ASL.
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.