ArticleCadernos de saude publica2025
[The hearing impaired communicate through sign language: the complexity of gaining access to healthcare services].
Article in Cadernos de saude publica, 2025. 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.
- Accessible Communication in Healthcare for Deaf People as a Linguistic Minority: A Scoping Review of Barriers, Mediation Strategies, and the Governance of Care.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to analyze access to healthcare among deaf individuals who communicate through Brazilian Sign Language (Libras, acronym in Portuguese) 18 years of age or older residing in the Metropolitan Region of Campinas, São Paulo State, Brazil, comparing public and private healthcare systems. A descriptive cross-sectional epidemiological study was conducted. The data collection instrument was an online form accessible in sign language. Statistical analysis involved contingency and frequency tables, georeferencing, and logistic regression. Among the 316 participants, most considered communication with health professionals to be poor in both the public (64.3%) and private (67.6%) systems. The likelihood of effective communication was only 40.47% in the best-case scenario (patients in public healthcare with a positive self-assessment of their health status). Hearing impaired individuals who use Libras and only use the public healthcare system were 22% more likely to have effective communication with health professionals compared to those who use the private healthcare system. Both public and private health services lack linguistic and communication accessibility, mainly due to a lack of knowledge of Libras on the part of health professionals.
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.