ArticlePloS one2026
Access to information in deaf and hard-of-hearing people.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deaf and Hard of Hearing (HoH) people often face communication barriers that limit their access to crucial information. This study investigates which modalities deaf people used to gather information from various sources, and which factors predicted accessibility, satisfaction, and wellbeing. We report the findings from an accessible survey study, released in two written and three signed languages. Responses from 395 deaf/HoH UK and Spanish residents were collected online shortly after the COVID-19 pandemic breakout. We investigated whether the onset and Level of Deafness, knowledge of sign language, Residence, and self-assessed reading skill predicted the frequency with which they found accessible information, their satisfaction levels with the information accessed, and their physical and mental health. We found that most deaf/HoH people relied on subtitles to access information from the government and the news, but when signed information was available (i.e., from deaf organisations), SL was the preferred modality of access. Our main finding was that reading skill was a key predictor, with less skilled readers being at a disadvantage, less satisfied, and having lower health outcomes. Our findings advocate for facilitating more signed information, as well as releasing written information at appropriate reading levels and improving literacy programmes for deaf people.
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.