Patient education and counseling · 2024
Examining the differences of perceptions and experience with online health information accessibility between deaf and hearing individuals: A qualitative study.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Chandanabhumma P Paul, Ratakonda Samantha, Panko Tiffany, Cuculick Jessica, Hauser Peter, Paasche-Orlow Michael K, Fetters Michael D, McKee Michael M
Аннотация
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.
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.