» Articles » PMID: 23451029

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

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2013 Mar 2
PMID 23451029
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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 4(th) grade reading level, and 91% of the materials intended for clients of older adult-serving CBOs scored above the recommended 6(th) 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.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of disparities in hospitalisation outcomes for deaf and hard of hearing patients with COVID-19: a multistate analysis of statewide inpatient databases from Florida, Maryland, New York and Washington.

Sakai-Bizmark R, Kumamaru H, Lee J, Estevez D, Wu F, Marr E BMJ Open. 2025; 15(1):e089470.

PMID: 39842928 PMC: 11881028. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089470.


A scoping review of wildfire smoke risk communications: issues, gaps, and recommendations.

Vien M, Ivey S, Boyden H, Holm S, Neuhauser L BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):312.

PMID: 38281022 PMC: 10822163. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-17681-0.


Efficacy of Communication Techniques and Health Outcomes of Bushfire Smoke Exposure: A Scoping Review.

Heaney E, Hunter L, Clulow A, Bowles D, Vardoulakis S Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(20).

PMID: 34682636 PMC: 8536189. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182010889.


Design suggestions for an mHealth app to facilitate communication between pharmacists and the Deaf: perspective of the Deaf community (HEARD Project).

Jacob S, Chong E, Goh S, Palanisamy U Mhealth. 2021; 7:29.

PMID: 33898598 PMC: 8063016. DOI: 10.21037/mhealth.2020.01.04.


Perception of COVID-19 Physical Distancing Effectiveness and Contagiousness of Asymptomatic Individuals: Cross-sectional Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Adults in the United States.

Paludneviciene R, Knight T, Firl G, Luttrell K, Takayama K, Kushalnagar P J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(2):e21103.

PMID: 33560996 PMC: 7909306. DOI: 10.2196/21103.


References
1.
Messias D, Lacy E . Katrina-related health concerns of Latino survivors and evacuees. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007; 18(2):443-64. DOI: 10.1353/hpu.2007.0041. View

2.
Traxler C . The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: National Norming and Performance Standards for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2004; 5(4):337-48. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/5.4.337. View

3.
Mohrmann C, Coleman E, Coon S, Lord J, Heard J, Cantrell M . An analysis of printed breast cancer information for African American women. J Cancer Educ. 2000; 15(1):23-7. DOI: 10.1080/08858190009528648. View

4.
Wallis D, Musselman C, Mackay S . Hearing mothers and their deaf children: the relationship between early, ongoing mode match and subsequent mental health functioning in adolescence. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2004; 9(1):2-14. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enh014. View

5.
Beckman H, Lueger R . Readability of self-report clinical outcome measures. J Clin Psychol. 1997; 53(8):785-9. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199712)53:8<785::aid-jclp1>3.0.co;2-f. View