Perceptions of deaf subjects about communication in Primary Health Care
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.2612.3127Keywords:
Accessibility, Primary Health Care, Communication Barriers, Communication, Hearing Loss, DeafnessAbstract
Objective: to analyze the perceptions of deaf individuals about the communication process with health professionals of the state of Rio de Janeiro. Methods: cross-sectional observational study. Data were collected through the application of a questionnaire with quantitative and qualitative questions to 121 deaf adults. Objective responses were studied descriptively through frequency tables and analyzed by inferential statistics and logistic regression. The data from the open questions were analyzed through content analysis. Results: the lack of interpreters and the lack of use of the Brazilian Sign Language by professionals were perceived as the main communication barriers. In turn, the presence of companions who are listeners (73%) and the use of mime/gestures (68%) were among the strategies most used by the deaf. The majority of deaf people reported insecurity in consultations, and those who best understood their diagnosis and treatment were the bilingual deaf (p = 0.0347) and the deaf who used oral communication (p = 0.0056). Conclusion: communication with the professionals was facilitated when the deaf people had a companion or when they used mimics and gestures. Sign language was neglected, despite the fact that the provision of care to the deaf by professionals trained to use this language is guaranteed in the legislation.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.