Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
Communication barriers for d/Deaf people with cancer: a scoping review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wogan Niomie, Habibi Ruth, Fallowfield Lesley, Harder Helena
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Significant healthcare disparities can be experienced by d/Deaf individuals, particularly in accessing effective communication and health information. Limited research has examined the experiences of d/Deaf cancer patients or how their interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and communication support professionals (CSPs) influence their quality of care. This scoping review aimed to map current evidence about the communication and unmet needs of d/Deaf cancer patients, educational needs of HCPs and roles of CSPs.
METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute method for Scoping Reviews, database searches were conducted on PsycInfo, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus, and grey literature was identified. Papers published in English that reported on the experiences of d/Deaf cancer patients and their communication with HCPs and CSPs were included. Thematic analysis was used to identify key descriptive themes.
RESULTS: Only nine (1 quantitative, 7 qualitative, 1 mixed-methods) papers were included. Most focused on d/Deaf cancer patients (mainly breast cancer); only 1 included HCPs and none examined CSPs. Three main themes and 9 subthemes were identified that negatively impacted d/Deaf cancer patients' views about their healthcare: system-level factors; interpersonal factors and patient-level factors. The HCP-focused paper highlighted that collaboration with interpreting services enhanced communication and patient understanding.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited data, this review highlights multiple barriers d/Deaf patients can encounter when accessing cancer services. Collectively, these may affect effective communication practices and can compromise the quality of care delivered. Data supports accessible educational resources, improved access to qualified medical interpreters and deaf awareness training for HCPs.
METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute method for Scoping Reviews, database searches were conducted on PsycInfo, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus, and grey literature was identified. Papers published in English that reported on the experiences of d/Deaf cancer patients and their communication with HCPs and CSPs were included. Thematic analysis was used to identify key descriptive themes.
RESULTS: Only nine (1 quantitative, 7 qualitative, 1 mixed-methods) papers were included. Most focused on d/Deaf cancer patients (mainly breast cancer); only 1 included HCPs and none examined CSPs. Three main themes and 9 subthemes were identified that negatively impacted d/Deaf cancer patients' views about their healthcare: system-level factors; interpersonal factors and patient-level factors. The HCP-focused paper highlighted that collaboration with interpreting services enhanced communication and patient understanding.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited data, this review highlights multiple barriers d/Deaf patients can encounter when accessing cancer services. Collectively, these may affect effective communication practices and can compromise the quality of care delivered. Data supports accessible educational resources, improved access to qualified medical interpreters and deaf awareness training for HCPs.