Health education research emphasizes the importance of cultural understanding and fit to achieve meaningful psycho-social research outcomes, community responsiveness and external validity to enhance health equity. However, many interventions address cultural fit through cultural competence and sensitivity approaches that are often superficial. The purpose of this study was to better situate culture within health education by operationalizing and testing new measures of the deeply grounded culture-centered approach (CCA) within the context of community-based participatory research (CBPR). A nation-wide mixed method sample of 200 CBPR partnerships included a survey questionnaire and in-depth case studies. The questionnaire enabled the development of a CCA scale using concepts of community voice/agency, reflexivity and structural transformation. Higher-order confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated factorial validity of the scale. Correlations supported convergent validity with positive associations between the CCA and partnership processes and capacity and health outcomes. Qualitative data from two CBPR case studies provided complementary socio-cultural historic background and cultural knowledge, grounding health education interventions and research design in specific contexts and communities. The CCA scale and case study analysis demonstrate key tools that community–academic research partnerships can use to assess deeper levels of culture centeredness for health education research.

The influence of early language and communication experiences on lifelong health outcomes is receiving increased public health attention. Most deaf children have non-signing hearing parents, and are at risk for not experiencing fully accessible language environments, a possible factor underlying known deaf population health disparities. Childhood indirect family communication–such as spontaneous conversations and listening in the routine family environment (e.g. family meals, recreation, car rides)–is an important source of health-related contextual learning opportunities. The goal of this study was to assess the influence of parental hearing status on deaf people’s recalled access to childhood indirect family communication. We analyzed data from the Rochester Deaf Health Survey–2013 (n = 211 deaf adults) for associations between sociodemographic factors including parental hearing status, and recalled access to childhood indirect family communication. Parental hearing status predicted deaf adults’ recalled access to childhood indirect family communication (χ2 = 31.939, p < .001). The likelihood of deaf adults reporting “sometimes to never” for recalled comprehension of childhood family indirect communication increased by 17.6 times for those with hearing parents. No other sociodemographic or deaf-specific factors in this study predicted deaf adults’ access to childhood indirect family communication. This study finds that deaf people who have hearing parents were more likely to report limited access to contextual learning opportunities during childhood. Parental hearing status and early childhood language experiences, therefore, require further investigation as possible social determinants of health to develop interventions that improve lifelong health and social outcomes of the underserved deaf population.

Community-engaged research with deaf populations identifies strengths and priorities, providing essential information otherwise missing from existing public health surveillance, and forming a foundation for collaborative dissemination to facilitate broader inclusion of deaf communities.

Recent community-based research indicates that the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the Deaf community exceeds known rates among hearing individuals, yet little is known about services available to Deaf IPV victims. Given the inaccessibility of IPV services, providers (doctors, psychologists, and lawyers) who know American Sign Language become IPV providers while addressing myriad comorbid issues that affect Deaf clients. This article presents data drawn from transcripts of semistructured interviews with 12 interdisciplinary providers who serve the Deaf population. We sought to understand the etiology of abuse involving Deaf victims and what, if any, services are available. We explore similarities and differences between service provision for hearing and Deaf IPV victims. Findings suggest providers working with Deaf IPV victims typically (a) work with victims and perpetrators alike, (b) provide services to couples and families, (c) serve larger geographical areas, and (d) address stigmatization. Perhaps the most important finding is that standard terminology in IPV measures, without linguistic and cultural modifications, may be invalid for use with Deaf individuals. Policy implications are discussed. C 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

No abstract