Cesarean birth and adverse birth outcomes among sub-populations of deaf and hard-of-hearing people.

BACKGROUND: Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) people are at higher risk than their non-DHH counterparts of experiencing adverse birth outcomes. There is a lack of research focusing on social, linguistic, and medical factors related to being DHH which may identify groups of DHH people who experience more inequity. OBJECTIVE: Examine difference in prevalence of cesarean and adverse birth outcomes among diverse sub-groups of DHH people. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of DHH birthing people in the U.S. who gave birth within the past 10 years. The sample was predominantly white, college educated, and married. We assessed cesarean birth and three adverse birth outcomes: preterm birth, low birthweight, and NICU admission post-delivery. DHH-specific variables were genetic etiology of hearing loss, preferred language (i.e., American Sign Language, English, or bilingual), severity of hearing loss, age of onset of hearing loss, and self-reported quality of perinatal care communication. We estimated prevalence, 95 % confidence intervals, and unadjusted prevalence ratios. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of our sample reported a cesarean birth. Overall, there were no significant differences in prevalence across the outcome variables with respect to preferred language, genetic etiology, severity, and age of onset. Poorer perinatal care communication quality was associated with higher prevalence of preterm birth (PR = 2.37) and NICU admission (PR = 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no evidence supporting differences in obstetric outcomes among DHH birthing people across medical factors related to deafness. Findings support the important role of communication access for DHH people in healthcare environments.

Severe maternal morbidity in deaf or hard of hearing women in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies on severe maternal morbidity (SMM) have often excluded women who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH), even though they are at increased risk of pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes. This study compared rates of SMM during delivery and postpartum among DHH and non-DHH women. METHODS: This nationally representative retrospective cohort study used hospital discharge data from the 2004-2020 Health Care and Cost Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample. The risk of SMM with and without blood transfusion during delivery and postpartum among DHH and non-DHH women were compared using modified Poisson regression analysis. The study was conducted in the United States in 2022-2023. RESULTS: The cohort included 9351 births to DHH women for the study period, and 13,574,382 age-matched and delivery year-matched births to non-DHH women in a 1:3 case-control ratio. The main outcomes were SMM and non-transfusion SMM during delivery and postpartum. Relative risks were sequentially adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, hospital-level characteristics, and clinical characteristics. In unadjusted analyses, DHH women were at 80% higher risk for SMM (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.63-2.02, p < 0.001) during delivery and postpartum compared to non-DHH women. Adjustment for socio-demographic and hospital characteristics attenuated risk for SMM (RR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.38-1.72, p < 0.001). Adjustment for the Elixhauser comorbidity score further attenuated the risk of SMM among DHH women (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study demonstrate a critical need for inclusive preconception, prenatal, and postpartum care that address conditions that increase the risk for SMM among DHH people.

Examining the differences of perceptions and experience with online health information accessibility between deaf and hearing individuals: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Describe and compare the experiences and preferences of Deaf and hearing individuals with different levels of health literacy in accessing, interpreting, and acting upon online health information. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 Deaf and 10 hearing participants with high and low health literacy from three healthcare sites. We conducted thematic analysis of the transcripts to explore information navigation experiences, information sources and dissemination preferences. RESULTS: We found thematic differences between Deaf and hearing participants with high and low health literacy in terms of information needs, information search experiences, information search perceptions, and preferred information dissemination approaches. Relative to hearing counterparts, Deaf participants were more likely to encounter challenges in accessing and understanding online information. Deaf participants with low health literacy were more likely to rely on visual graphics to support their understanding of the information than those with high health literacy. Deaf participants advocated for tailored approaches to disseminate health information to Deaf communities. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that differences in online health information navigation experiences and accessibility may inform disparities in health literacy outcomes between Deaf and hearing individuals. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Online health information should be presented in a manner accessible to Deaf community members.