Deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing needs and perceptions of community pharmacy services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing (D/DB/HOH) individuals face communication challenges affecting their health, which can lead to medication errors. Pharmacists can mitigate medication-related errors for D/DB/HOH individuals, but there is a lack of evidence-based best practices. This study explored the experiences of D/DB/HOH people at a community pharmacy and offered practical solutions to improve pharmaceutical care for D/DB/HOH individuals. Methods: A qualitative study consisting of 5 focus group discussions occurred. Focus groups were formed based on participants’ ability to use sign language, their hearing ability, and their age. Results: Nineteen participants completed the study (8 HOH adults, 2 HOH seniors, 1 deaf-blind adult, 4 deaf adults, and 4 deaf seniors). Communication barriers depended on one’s hearing ability but included factors such as assuming one can hear, environmental noises around the pharmacy, pharmacists not knowing American Sign Language, and assuming individuals are proficient at reading English. Focus group participants shared the potential and actual impacts that communication barriers can have on health. Strategies to improve communication between hearing pharmacists and D/DB/HOH individuals are discussed. Discussion: This is the first study in Canada exploring D/DB/HOH individuals’ experiences at community pharmacies. Focus groups were effective at revealing the similarities and differences in pharmacy experience between D/DB/HOH folks, calling attention to access barriers and their impacts on health, and highlighting ways to better meet the needs of D/DB/HOH individuals. Conclusion: Communication barriers result in a lack of understanding of one’s medications. Pharmacists should ask about communication preferences and aim to reduce communication barriers for those who are D/DB/HOH.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".