Deaf and hard of hearing awareness training: A mentor‐led workshop
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) comprise a significant and increasing proportion of the population. They face many barriers to accessing good health care and major communication challenges with health professionals. There is evidence that DHH awareness training for health professionals needs improvement but little information about how such training is incorporated into curricula. The research question we address is how to develop and deliver an effective workshop for students led by people who, by definition, have barriers to communication due to hearing loss and deafness. METHODS: Workshop development was initiated and led by a medical student as a course project, in collaboration with DHH people, other students, and university faculty in an iterative participatory educational design process, supported by a community-based organization that provides programs and services for DHH people. Development resulted in a pilot workshop suitable for all health professional students. RESULTS: Three workshops were attended by a total of 49 students from 10 different health disciplines. Workshops were highly rated. Thematic analysis of post-workshop reflections written by occupational therapy students showed learning in the domains of knowledge, skills (practical tips and techniques), and attitudes (assumptions, motivation, reflection). CONCLUSIONS: Partnership with a community organization makes it feasible for DHH people to design and facilitate workshops. The organization can provide the necessary environment, technology, and support, and identify people with lived experience to be workshop mentors. Workshops help make students more aware of the needs of DHH people and motivate them to provide better care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it