Communication barrier in family linked to increased risks for food insecurity among deaf people who use American Sign Language.

OBJECTIVE: Food security is defined as being able to access enough food that will help maintain an active, healthy lifestyle for those living in a household. While there are no studies on food security issues among deaf people, research shows that communication barriers early in life are linked to poor physical and mental health outcomes. Childhood communication barriers may also risk later food insecurity. Design/Setting/Subjects A single food security screener question found to have 82 % sensitivity in classifying families who are at risk for food insecurity was taken from the six-item US Household Food Security Survey Module. Questions related to food insecurity screener, depression diagnosis and retrospective communication experience were translated to American Sign Language and then included in an online survey. Over 600 deaf adult signers (18-95 years old) were recruited across the USA. RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, deaf adults who reported being able to understand little to none of what their caregiver said during their formative years were about five times more likely to often experience difficulty with making food last or finding money to buy more food, and were about three times more likely to sometimes experience this difficulty, compared with deaf adults who reported to being able to understand some to all of what their caregiver said. CONCLUSIONS: Our results have highlighted a marked risk for food insecurity and related outcomes among deaf people. This should raise serious concern among individuals who have the potential to effect change in deaf children's access to communication.

Deaf Women's Health: Adherence to Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: No prevalence studies on cancer screening adherence among Deaf women have been conducted in the past decade. Current data on breast and cervical cancer screening are needed from Deaf women who adhered or did not adhere to the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force screening guidelines. The objectives of this study were to assess whether disparities for cancer screening adherence persist for Deaf women compared with the general population and whether racial and ethnic disparities for adherence exist among Deaf women. METHODS: Data for adherence to Pap (n=529, Deaf women; n=1,119, hearing women) and mammogram screening (n=324, Deaf women; n=1,086, hearing women) were drawn from the Health Information National Trends Survey in American Sign Language (Deaf women; February-August 2017 and October 2017-May 2018) and the Health Information National Trends Survey 5, Cycle 1, data set (hearing women; January-May 2017). Data were analyzed in 2018. Propensity score model of the weighed samples estimated the probability of adherence among the entire sample and within the sample of Deaf women for each screening test. RESULTS: About 78% (n=415) of age-eligible Deaf women and 85% (n=956) of age-eligible hearing women adhered to Pap screening recommendations (p<0.001). For breast cancer screening, the adherence rates for 245 Deaf women and 891 hearing women were 76% and 82%, respectively (p<0.01). After adjusting for correlates, for Deaf women, disparities remained for cervical cancer screening but not breast cancer screening. Race and ethnicity were not associated with cancer screening adherence. CONCLUSIONS: This is a call to action for targeted, accessible health promotion interventions for age-eligible Deaf women to increase adherence to cervical cancer screening.

Prevalence of Self-Reported Hypertension in Deaf Adults Who Use American Sign Language.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, roughly one-third of adults have hypertension; another third have prehypertension. The prevalence of hypertension in deaf American Sign Language (ASL) users is unknown. We address this gap through a descriptive study for the prevalence of hypertension in the American Deaf community and discuss future directions to address this issue. METHODS: Self-reported data for 1,388 ASL using deaf adults were compared with a secondary data of 2,830 English-speaking hearing adults. Frequency and percentages were used to describe the prevalence of hypertension in the deaf community. Age-weighted analysis was used to compare unmodifiable risk factors and hypertension rate between deaf and hearing adults. RESULTS: Deaf and hearing samples' hypertension rates for gender and age were similar. Significant group differences between deaf and hearing samples emerged across race. Compared with the hearing controls, our deaf sample demonstrated a significantly decreased risk for hypertension with a prevalence of 37% (compared with 45% in the hearing sample). CONCLUSIONS: Although the hypertension rate for gender and age was similar across deaf and hearing samples, between-group disparities exist for race. The lower rate of hypertension in our deaf sample is likely a consequence of underdiagnoses due to lower health literacy and poor patient-physician communication. Furthermore, deaf black Americans' lower rates compared with hearing black Americans may be due to poor patient-physician communication, not having regular providers or social stressors. It is recommended that modifiable risk factors and social determinants be investigated to determine their effect on hypertension within the deaf community.