SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Factors and mitigating strategies impacting receipt of healthcare by the Deaf community: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite over 70 million Deaf people using sign languages worldwide, their ability to access and receive health services remains disproportionately limited. The Deaf community commonly encounter reduced access to preventive care compared to the hearing population. This umbrella review aims to collate and appraise systematic reviews examining factors and mitigating strategies influencing Deaf people’s receipt of healthcare.
methodsThe protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024563083). Eligible systematic reviews investigated factors affecting healthcare receipt among the Deaf communities in any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country. Databases searched included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and PROSPERO. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal (AMSTAR 2) were undertaken independently by reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Data were synthesised narratively using a purpose-specific conceptual framework, categorising factors as individual or environmental.
resultsFrom 3,749 records, 32 systematic reviews were included. Most reviews (78%) were rated critically low in quality. Individual-level barriers were dominated by reduced health literacy (reported in 26 reviews), including inadequate access to sign language health information, limited family awareness, and poorer knowledge of medicines and preventive practices. Socioeconomic status, rural residence, minority ethnic background and limited family support were also linked to reduced healthcare access. Environmental factors included communication barriers, low Deaf awareness among healthcare professionals and shortages of qualified interpreters, all of which fostered Deaf people’s mistrust and disengagement with healthcare. Inadequate recording of communication needs, inaccessible complaints processes and COVID-19 policies further exacerbated inequalities. Strategies identified included sign language–adapted health education, interpreter provision, telehealth services, and specialist Deaf health clinics with interpreters, however few reviews offered evidence for effectiveness.
conclusionsDeaf people experience persistent, multifactorial barriers to equitable healthcare, driven by low health literacy, social disadvantage, poor communication support and systemic failings. Current evidence is largely of low methodological quality, underscoring the need for robust, co-produced research with Deaf communities. Priority areas include redesigning healthcare processes for accessible communication, expanding interpreter provision, and embedding Deaf awareness training into professional education to achieve systemic change.
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.