Availability and Readability of Emergency Preparedness Materials for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing and Older Adult Populations: Issues and Assessments

Abstract

A major public health challenge is to communicate effectively with vulnerable populations about preparing for disasters and other health emergencies. People who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (Deaf/HH) and older adults are particularly vulnerable during health emergencies and require communications that are accessible and understandable. Although health literacy studies indicate that the readability of health communication materials often exceeds people’s literacy levels, we could find no research about the readability of emergency preparedness materials (EPM) intended for Deaf/HH and older adult populations. The objective of this study was to explore issues related to EPM for Deaf/HH and older adult populations, to assess the availability and readability of materials for these populations, and to recommend improvements. In two California counties, we interviewed staff at 14 community-based organizations (CBOs) serving Deaf/HH clients and 20 CBOs serving older adults selected from a stratified, random sample of 227 CBOs. We collected 40 EPM from 10 CBOs and 2 public health departments and 40 EPM from 14 local and national websites with EPM for the public. We used computerized assessments to test the U.S. grade reading levels of the 16 eligible CBO and health department EPM, and the 18 eligible website materials. Results showed that less than half of CBOs had EPM for their clients. All EPM intended for clients of Deaf/HH-serving CBOs tested above the recommended 4th grade reading level, and 91% of the materials intended for clients of older adult-serving CBOs scored above the recommended 6th grade level. EPM for these populations should be widely available through CBOs and public health departments, adhere to health literacy principles, and be accessible in alternative formats including American Sign Language. Developers should engage the intended users of EPM as co-designers and testers. This study adds to the limited literature about EPM for these populations.

Responding to the deaf in disasters: establishing the need for systematic training for state-level emergency management agencies and community organizations

“…In addition, despite the fact that deaf-serving organizations are expected to be uniquely attuned to the literacy and functional needs of their respective constituents, written emergency preparedness materials designed for dissemination to Deaf audiences appear to be lacking. The readability of 100% (5/5) of the sample of materials collected from deaf-serving CBO’s tested above the average literacy level for Deaf/HH populations [25]. …”

“…The literature review indicates that there is a critical need for evaluation of trainings specific to Deaf/HH individuals in order to ensure effective training procedures and emergency preparedness programs for these populations. We also need further research on factors that promote or hinder preparedness communication capacity of agencies that serve Deaf/HH populations in disasters, deaf/HH-serving CBOs, and Deaf/HH individuals [2,25]. …”

“…For the purposes of this paper, we report analysis of three training-related interview items about departmental or other trainings attended by the KI interviewees. Other manuscripts available and in preparation will review results from remaining survey items asked of state personnel [25]. …”

Bilingual approach to online cancer genetics education for Deaf American Sign Language users produces greater knowledge and confidence than English text only: A randomized study

“…The control condition's ~7 th grade reading grade level conforms to the average US adult reading level (20) and to NIH guidelines for health information (53). Although this health information was of value to Deaf ASL-users with at least some college education, it was insufficient to increase cancer genetics knowledge for ASL-users with less education.…”

“…Language acquisition background for deaf individuals is varied (17), and as a result, their English reading comprehension level tends to be lower on average (18, 19) than the average 7 th -8 th grade reading level in the general US population(20). Moreover, most health information is written at even higher grade levels (1) and without attention to cultural aspects of the Deaf community, a particularly important deficit when addressing the sensitive topic of genetics (21-24).…”