Preferred Communication Strategies for People with Communication Disabilities in Health Care Encounters: a Qualitative Study.

Erin Hickey, Bernice Man, Kaila V T Helm, Steven Lockhart, Jennifer Duffecy, Megan A Morris
Author Information
  1. Erin Hickey: University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. ehicke9@uic.edu. ORCID
  2. Bernice Man: University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
  3. Kaila V T Helm: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  4. Steven Lockhart: Adult and Child Center for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Service, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
  5. Jennifer Duffecy: University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
  6. Megan A Morris: Adult and Child Center for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Service, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: People with communication disabilities (CDs), which includes disabilities in speech, language, voice and/or hearing, experience health and healthcare disparities. A barrier to accessing high-quality, equitable care is the lack of effective communication between patients and their providers.
OBJECTIVE: In designing a patient-prompted tool to facilitate communication, we analyzed qualitative feedback on communication strategies and the experience of people with CDs, caregivers, and providers in healthcare encounters. We aimed to describe communication strategies that patients with CDs find most useful and optimize a tool for patients to share their communication strategy preferences during clinical encounters. While patient-provider communication is paramount in every interaction, we aimed to highlight the intricacies of optimizing communication for this population.
DESIGN: We performed a qualitative study utilizing focus groups and interviews with patients with CDs, their caregivers, and healthcare providers.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 46 individuals participated in focus groups or interviews; 26 participants self-reported a CD, nine were caregivers, and 11 were providers. Participants represented diverse types of CDs, including stuttering, aphasia, hearing loss, and people with autism or cerebral palsy who use assistive technology to communicate.
APPROACH: Analysis of qualitative interview and focus group data was guided by a qualitative content analysis approach.
KEY RESULTS: We identified three themes: (1) While communication strategies should be individualized, participants agreed upon a consolidated list of best strategies and accommodations. We used this consolidated list to finalize tool development. (2) Patients and providers preferred disclosure of the CD and desired communication strategies before the appointment. (3) Providers often do not use communication strategies and accommodations during clinical encounters.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with CDs, it is critical to acknowledge and document the CD and individualize communication strategies during healthcare visits to facilitate communication. Studies are needed to evaluate whether improved communication strategy usage leads to improved health outcomes for this population.

Keywords

References

  1. Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88 [PMID: 16204405]
  2. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Mar;21(3):260-6 [PMID: 16499543]
  3. Health Expect. 2006 Mar;9(1):49-59 [PMID: 16436161]
  4. Am J Prev Med. 2016 Dec;51(6):865-873 [PMID: 27687529]
  5. Augment Altern Commun. 2014 Dec;30(4):329-43 [PMID: 25229213]
  6. J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Feb;14(2):82-7 [PMID: 10051778]
  7. Med Care. 2009 Aug;47(8):826-34 [PMID: 19584762]
  8. Qual Health Res. 2002 Apr;12(4):531-45 [PMID: 11939252]
  9. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022 Dec;136:104365 [PMID: 36327681]
  10. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015 Aug;24(3):341-57 [PMID: 25760479]
  11. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017 Dec;43(12):642-650 [PMID: 29173284]
  12. CMAJ. 1995 May 1;152(9):1423-33 [PMID: 7728691]
  13. J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Dec;33(12):2147-2155 [PMID: 30143977]
  14. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013 Nov;8(6):472-81 [PMID: 23350909]
  15. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Dec;97(12):2202-2221.e8 [PMID: 27117383]
  16. CMAJ. 2008 Jun 3;178(12):1555-62 [PMID: 18519903]
  17. Disabil Health J. 2016 Jan;9(1):140-4 [PMID: 26303018]
  18. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2005 Aug;14(3):221-8 [PMID: 16229673]
  19. Ann Fam Med. 2008 Jul-Aug;6(4):331-9 [PMID: 18626033]
  20. Health Aff (Millwood). 2022 Jan;41(1):96-104 [PMID: 34982624]
  21. BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):50-2 [PMID: 10617534]
  22. Health Aff (Millwood). 2021 Feb;40(2):297-306 [PMID: 33523739]
  23. Patient. 2014;7(4):397-401 [PMID: 24939644]
  24. Disabil Health J. 2015 Apr;8(2):208-15 [PMID: 25458973]
  25. Autism. 2017 Nov;21(8):972-984 [PMID: 27663266]
  26. Autism. 2015 Oct;19(7):824-31 [PMID: 25882392]
  27. Disabil Health J. 2018 Jan;11(1):122-125 [PMID: 28596096]
  28. Vital Health Stat 10. 2014 Feb;(260):1-161 [PMID: 24819891]
  29. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001 Jun;44(3):624-38 [PMID: 11407567]
  30. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2021 Feb;13(2):181-188 [PMID: 33454077]
  31. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Mar 2;140(5):356-62 [PMID: 14996677]
  32. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 12;8(8):e70855 [PMID: 23951026]
  33. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Jul;34(7):1139-1145 [PMID: 30887435]
  34. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2006 Winter;13(1):68-77 [PMID: 16581632]
  35. Cancer Prev Control. 1999 Feb;3(1):25-30 [PMID: 10474749]

Grants

  1. AD-2019C1-15642)/Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

MeSH Term

Humans
Male
Qualitative Research
Female
Adult
Middle Aged
Communication Disorders
Communication
Focus Groups
Aged
Physician-Patient Relations
Caregivers
Patient Preference
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0communicationstrategiesCDspatientsprovidershealthcarequalitativedisabilitiestoolcaregiversencountersfocusCDPeoplehearingexperiencehealthcarefacilitatepeopleaimedstrategyclinicalpopulationgroupsinterviewsparticipantsuseconsolidatedlistaccommodationsimprovedCommunicationBACKGROUND:includesspeechlanguagevoiceand/ordisparitiesbarrieraccessinghigh-qualityequitablelackeffectiveOBJECTIVE:designingpatient-promptedanalyzedfeedbackdescribefindusefuloptimizesharepreferencespatient-providerparamounteveryinteractionhighlightintricaciesoptimizingDESIGN:performedstudyutilizingPARTICIPANTS:total46individualsparticipated26self-reportednine11ParticipantsrepresenteddiversetypesincludingstutteringaphasialossautismcerebralpalsyassistivetechnologycommunicateAPPROACH:AnalysisinterviewgroupdataguidedcontentanalysisapproachKEYRESULTS:identifiedthreethemes:1individualizedagreeduponbestusedfinalizedevelopment2Patientspreferreddisclosuredesiredappointment3ProvidersoftenCONCLUSIONS:criticalacknowledgedocumentindividualizevisitsStudiesneededevaluatewhetherusageleadsoutcomesPreferredStrategiesDisabilitiesHealthCareEncounters:QualitativeStudycaregiverprimary

Similar Articles

Cited By