Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41444583›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Reducing health inequalities in the deaf community: a priority setting exercise.

Anna Selby, Alison Jones, Helen Radford, Daniel Hind

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

4 authors.

Anna SelbyPulvertaft Hand Centre, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK. anna.selby@nhs.net.
Alison JonesCommunication Unlimited, Derby, UK.
Helen RadfordRoyal School for the Deaf Derby, Derby, UK.
Daniel HindSocial Care Research and Development, School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Deaf community experiences health inequalities including higher mortality rates, increased prevalence of chronic conditions, and poorer access to healthcare services compared to the general population. Despite calls for urgent research investment and meaningful community engagement, no research agenda developed by and for the Deaf community exists to address these inequalities. Traditional priority-setting exercises often exclude or dilute the perspectives of underrepresented groups. This study aimed to identify and prioritise research questions to address health inequalities experienced by Deaf British Sign Language (BSL) users in the UK, using Research Prioritisation by Affected Communities (RPAC) methodology to ensure community voices were centred without external filtering.

methodsA Deaf-led steering group adapted RPAC methodology for BSL accessibility. Two rounds of focus groups were conducted entirely in BSL led by Deaf facilitators. Round one (January 2025) included 43 Deaf BSL users across eight groups who shared experiences of healthcare receipt across seven NHS services. The 294 extracted statements were categorised using a conceptual framework for understanding healthcare disparities in disability, then refined into nine research themes by Deaf public contributors. In round two, 38 participants (87% retention) prioritised themes using a resource allocation exercise where each participant distributed £1 million across themes. Themes were ranked by total allocation.

resultsEnvironmental factors (222 statements) substantially outnumbered individual factors (72 statements) in round one. The highest priority theme was ‘process’ (28% of votes), focusing on enabling direct NHS communication without telephone barriers. ‘Deaf awareness for NHS staff’ ranked second (25%), followed by ‘interpreters’ (17%) and ‘technology’ (13%). Individual-level interventions received minimal prioritisation: ‘Deaf health empowerment’ (1%) and ‘Deaf health champions’ (0.6%). Participants emphasised systemic failures including non-compliance with the Accessible Information Standard and lack of BSL interpretation.

conclusionsDeaf BSL users prioritised systemic NHS changes over individual interventions, indicating that institutional barriers must be addressed before individual-level approaches can be effective. The emphasis on process improvements and staff awareness training has immediate implications for NHS policy and Accessible Information Standard (AIS) enforcement. These findings should inform research commissioning, with priority given to co-designed interventions addressing communication processes and developing effective Deaf awareness training for healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth PrioritiesHealth Status DisparitiesPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleSign LanguageSocioeconomic Disparities in HealthState MedicineUnited KingdomDeafEngagementHealth inequalityResearch prioritisation

Identifiers

PMID41444583
PMCPMC12838473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.