Improve communication with deaf and hard of hearing clients during Covid-19

Dehkordi, Leila Mardanian; Ghiyasvandian, Shahrzad

doi:10.18502/avr.v30i2.6100

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A mixed‐methods online survey (3B) reported that patients felt communication with masks to be especially challenging in healthcare situations and that transparent masks may improve interactions (Saunders et al., 2021). Eleven non‐research articles (5A & 5B) also suggested benefits of using transparent masks in order to preserve facial expressions and allow for lip reading (Altschuler et al., 2021; Clancy, 2021; Dehkordi & Ghiyasvandian, 2021; Kilgore et al., 2021; Knollman‐Porter & Burshnic, 2020; McKee et al., 2020; Mehta et al., 2020; Mheidly et al., 2020; Mitchell & Hill, 2020; Murphy et al., 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adults with normal hearing and adults with hearing impairments recommended assistive devices, including the use of transcription apps when communicating with facemasks (Saunders et al., 2021). The use of transcription apps that convert spoken words into written text in real‐time was also suggested by three non‐research articles (5B & 5A) (Carter, 2020; Dehkordi & Ghiyasvandian, 2021; Marler & Ditton, 2021; McKee et al., 2020), and general assistive technologies were suggested by an additional two non‐research articles (5B) (Houchens & Tipirneni, 2020; Mehta et al., 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Performance did not improve with a face shield and one type of transparent mask, where there was further distortion of the speech. Three non‐research articles also suggested the use of microphone devices, including speakers in patient rooms (5B) (Schlosser et al., 2021), pocket talkers (5B) (Dehkordi & Ghiyasvandian, 2021), and lapel microphones (5A) (Altschuler et al., 2021). Lastly, three non‐research articles (5A & 5B) suggested always ensuring that a patient is wearing their prescribed sensory aid (i.e., hearing aids and glasses) (Altschuler et al., 2021; Dehkordi & Ghiyasvandian, 2021; McKee et al., 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three non‐research articles also suggested the use of microphone devices, including speakers in patient rooms (5B) (Schlosser et al., 2021), pocket talkers (5B) (Dehkordi & Ghiyasvandian, 2021), and lapel microphones (5A) (Altschuler et al., 2021). Lastly, three non‐research articles (5A & 5B) suggested always ensuring that a patient is wearing their prescribed sensory aid (i.e., hearing aids and glasses) (Altschuler et al., 2021; Dehkordi & Ghiyasvandian, 2021; McKee et al., 2020). The use of a lapel microphone appears to be a successful strategy and although the quality of the other evidence is not compelling, it provides future directions for research and practical tips that are low‐risk and logical.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…aids such as explanatory books and videos, written messages, and communication boards were recommended by eight non-research studies (5A & 5B) (Altschuler et al, 2021;Clancy, 2021;Dehkordi & Ghiyasvandian, 2021;Kilgore et al, 2021;Knollman-Porter & Burshnic, 2020;Marler & Ditton, 2021;McKee et al, 2020;Vaidhyanathan et al, 2020).…”

Section: Visual Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Best practices for communication while wearing facemasks: A scoping review

Shaw,

Lee,

Williams

et al. 2023

J of Nursing Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionFacemasks are an important piece of personal protective equipment (PPE) to mitigate the spread of respiratory illnesses, but they can impede communication between patients and healthcare providers. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify effective communication practices while wearing facemasks.DesignScoping review using a systematic search of articles from the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases.MethodsThe PEO (population, exposure, outcome) methodology was selected for this systematic scoping review. The population of interest (P) includes humans of all ages (children, adults, and older adults); the exposure of interest (E) is PPE that covers the mouth (i.e., facemasks); and the outcome of interest (O) is successful or unsuccessful communication practices. The Johns Hopkins Evidence‐Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals appraisal guidelines were used to determine the level and quality of the research.ResultsThirty‐nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen of these were high‐ or good‐quality research studies, and the remaining 22 were non‐research articles included with separate analysis as part of the scoping review. The 17 articles encompassed 2656 participants. The highest quality evidence indicated that standard surgical masks have the least impact on speech perception compared to other non‐transparent mask types, and that recognizing emotions is less accurate with facemasks, necessitating compensatory actions (i.e., reducing extraneous noise, using a microphone to amplify voice, and employing clear speech). Evidence was contradictory regarding the use of transparent masks. Evidence was of limited quality for other non‐verbal and verbal communication strategies.ConclusionAwareness of communication challenges is crucial when wearing facemasks. More high‐quality studies are needed to evaluate communication techniques when speakers are wearing facemasks. Basic strategies such as selecting an appropriate mask type, reducing extraneous noise, using microphones, verbalizing emotions, and employing clear speech appear to be beneficial.Clinical RelevanceThe findings of this scoping review highlight the importance of considering communication challenges while wearing facemasks in the healthcare settings. The review suggests that selecting an appropriate mask type, reducing extraneous noise, verbalizing emotions, and employing clear speech are some strategies that may be effective in mitigating the impact of facemasks on communication between patients and healthcare providers.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Visual Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Best practices for communication while wearing facemasks: A scoping review

Shaw,

Lee,

Williams

et al. 2023

J of Nursing Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Individuals with hearing impairment/deafness during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A rapid review on communication challenges and strategies

Mansutti

Achil

Gastaldo

et al. 2022

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives This study aimed (a) to identify the communication issues and problems faced by individuals with hearing impairment (HI)/deafness during the COVID‐19 pandemic and (b) to describe strategies to overcome the issues/problems and/or prevent their negative impact. Background Individuals with mild or severe HI face everyday communication problems, which have been worsened during the COVID‐19 pandemic. However, no studies have summarised the available evidence to better understand the communication challenges faced by them and strategies allowing better interactions. The long duration of the outbreak—more than 2 years, with policies that have just been lifted in some countries—and the possible return of restrictions in the next Winter suggest the need to summarise evidence in the field. Design and methods A rapid review is reported here in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis guidelines. Medline, CINAHL and Scopus databases were searched, including (a) primary or secondary studies published from January 2020 to 12 January 2022, (b) involving individuals with HI/deafness, (c) during the COVID‐19 pandemic and (d) written in English. Data were extracted and summarised by using a content analysis approach. Patient or public contribution No Patient or Public Contribution. Results Fourteen studies were included as follows: three non‐systematic reviews, seven cross‐sectional, three quasi‐ experimental and one qualitative study, performed mainly in the US and the UK. Face mask covering use; physical and social distancing; and information, education, rehabilitation, and healthcare accessibility have emerged as the main challenges triggering consequences such as social isolation, loneliness, poor knowledge regarding the prevention and mental health issues. Strategies mitigating these challenges are as follows: (a) adopting transparent face masks, (b) using basic skills while interacting (e.g. maintaining eye contact), (c) improving the availability of sign language interpreters, (d) allowing the presence of family members and (e) teaching basics of sign language to healthcare professionals. Conclusions and relevance to clinical practice Individuals with HI/deafness live with several challenges, suggesting that their vulnerability has increased tremendously during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The effectiveness of strategies to overcome these difficulties should be scrutinised by conducting more research. Moreover, there should be increased awareness among all citizens by equipping them with simple strategies to communicate effectively with individuals with HI, an approach that may increase inclusiveness and prevent further negative consequences and burden.

show abstract

Improve communication with deaf and hard of hearing clients during Covid-19

Abstract: The article's abstract is not available.

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Best practices for communication while wearing facemasks: A scoping review

Best practices for communication while wearing facemasks: A scoping review

Individuals with hearing impairment/deafness during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A rapid review on communication challenges and strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About