February 14, 2026
Enhancing communication in healthcare: Supports for interactions between adults with hearing loss and healthcare providers

Abstract

Background

Communication between a healthcare provider and an adult with hearing loss can be challenging and potentially contribute to health outcomes. To overcome this challenge, researchers have called for urgent multidisciplinary action on communication support in hearing healthcare.

Objective

This scoping review examines the existing literature on communication support that can be provided to adults with hearing loss during their interactions with healthcare professionals.

Methods

An online search was conducted using EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. All studies were imported into the Covidence platform for screening. The studies included in this analysis were published in English between 2013 and 2024.

Results

Twelve articles were included in this review, and seven themes were identified: supportive nonverbal strategies, supportive verbal strategies, human support, environmental and physical adaptations, technological support, education and training, and psychological support and counseling.

Conclusions

When communicating with a healthcare provider, adults with hearing loss can be assisted through supportive communication strategies.

Introduction

Hearing loss is a sensory impairment, a hidden disability that affects many adults worldwide [1–4]. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that by 2050, hearing loss will affect about 10 percent of global population [5]. Hearing loss can lead to communication breakdowns when speech comprehension is impaired [5,6]. The miscomprehension of spoken messages creates barriers to efficient communication for adults with hearing loss (AwHL) and disrupts appropriate patient-clinician interactions [7–9]. Furthermore, AwHL may struggle to understand health-related information due to communication failure or misunderstanding verbal messages, which can result in poorer health outcomes compared to those without hearing loss [10,11].

Lack of support for communication can also negatively affect AwHL’s clinical outcomes and social interactions [10,12]. Communication failure in the clinical setting continues to adversely impact the well-being of people with hearing loss. Consequently, these individuals often experience a sense of exclusion, isolation, and frustration resulting from the absence of supportive strategies and adequate modifications to accommodate their communication requirements [13]. To prevent communication breakdown and sustain effective interactions, healthcare providers (HCPs) are advised to use supportive communication strategies for patients with hearing problems [6]. This support encompasses any strategy or adaptation that enhances communication and ultimately improves interaction [13,14].

Indeed, HCPs play a significant role in the health outcomes of patients with hearing loss [15]. When an HCP communicates effectively with an AwHL, the likelihood of errors in diagnosis or medication prescription is often reduced, leading to better patient outcomes [16,17]. Many individuals with hearing loss experience communication challenges during clinical visits to physicians or primary care providers [17]. To address this issue, it is necessary to conduct a study and update information about communication supports available to HCPs to improve interaction with AwHL.

Methods

This scoping review was based on Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework [18] and Levac et al.’s recommendations [19]. The framework consists of five steps: 1. Identifying the research question; 2. Identifying relevant studies; 3. Selecting studies, 4. Charting the data, 5. Collating, summarizing, and reporting results. This study reviewed the existing literature on communication supports that can be used to improve interactions between HCPs and AwHL.

Identifying the research question

Based on the current literature, the review was guided by the research question, “What communication supports can be used by HCPs to facilitate interaction with AwHL?”. The target population is comprised of HCPs who communicate with AwHL.

Identifying relevant studies

This review focuses on scientific literature published between January 2013 and March 2024. The search strategy included keywords associated with the research question: 1. Communication support (i.e., communication strategies, supportive communication, communication techniques, communication facilitation, verbal/nonverbal strategies); 2. Adults with hearing loss (i.e., hearing impairment, adult hearing loss); and 3. Healthcare providers (i.e., healthcare providers, health professionals). A comprehensive search was performed using the following keywords across four electronic databases: EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. These databases were selected due to their extensive coverage of peer-reviewed journals relevant to the topic. The titles and abstracts of the studies were searched using keywords, and medical subject headings (MeSH) were employed whenever appropriate. A manual keyword search was also performed using Google Scholar.

Study selection

Eligibility criteria: The study focused on HCPs and AwHL interacting in a clinical setting. The concepts examined involved communication supports and strategies employed or recommended to HCPs when communicating with AwHL. Observational and experimental studies using qualitative or quantitative methods were eligible for inclusion. Literature, such as dissertations, conference papers, and review studies, was not included. The inclusion criteria focused on HCPs interacting with AwHL and included studies published in English within the last 10 years. To be eligible, papers had to address the communication supports and strategies used with AwHL in healthcare settings. The communication supports/strategies sought were those assisting communication between HCPs and AwHL. Systematic, literature, and scoping reviews, opinion pieces, studies involving children, non-English studies, conference abstracts, informal publications, and studies where the HCPs had hearing loss were excluded

Study selection process and data collection: All relevant studies were imported to the Covidence platform ( Duplicate studies were removed, and the remaining studies were screened based on the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers (the first and second authors) independently assessed each study. Conflicting studies were discussed with the fourth author to arrive at a final decision. Full-text screening was conducted on eligible records, and a summary table was created to organize the extracted data. The first author completed the data charting with verification from the second and third authors to identify supportive communication strategies in each study. The data collection process, from identification to screening and inclusion, is illustrated in Fig 1.

Charting the data

Two tables were created to chart the data. The first table included the studies’ characteristics, including descriptions of participants, objectives, study design, setting, and outcomes. The second table was used to organize the data related to communication supports extracted from the studies. A figure was added to consolidate recommended strategies for professionals.

Results

The initial search yielded 4,030 studies. After removing duplicates, the first and second authors screened 2,393 records based on their titles and abstracts. Of these, 2,251 records were found to be ineligible and excluded. The remaining 34 articles were thoroughly evaluated in a full-text review, and 12 studies were included in the research sample. A PRISMA diagrammatic representation of the screening process is shown in Fig 1.

Characteristics of the included studies

The participants in the included studies comprised diverse samples of HCPs (Table 1). The data originated from nine countries, with the USA being the most represented. Other studies presented data from multiple countries: Brazil, Italy, Japan, South Africa, Colombia, and Saudi Arabia. The data also included diverse groups of HCPs. The major participant categories were nurses (including registered nurses, nurse assistants, and nurse technicians), emergency medical service workers (including practitioners and students), and audiologists. Furthermore, community health workers were among the HCP population in the included studies. In the studies, HCPs, comprising physicians, physiotherapists, nutritionists, speech-language pathologists, dentists, pharmacists, and psychologists, were included as participants.

Many studies (n = 7) were conducted in public health systems, such as nursing units of hospitals, primary medical health care, community health workers, and emergency medical services. The other settings were private clinics (n = 2), associations with hearing-impaired people (n = 2), and universities (n = 2). Seven of the studies were descriptive, three were qualitative, and two were in mixed methods.

Identified supportive strategies

The seven key supportive communication strategies identified are summarized in Table 2 and can be employed by HCPs when interacting with AwHL. The strategies used were: 1. nonverbal supportive strategies; 2. verbal supportive strategies; 3. human support; 4. environmental and physical support; 5. technological support; 6. education and training; and 7. psychological support and counseling.

Discussion

The objective of this scoping review was to understand the communication supports that can be employed by HCPs to enrich interactions with AwHL. Health professionals can use these supports in different contexts (Table 1) to optimize communication in clinical practice. Seven concepts were identified (Table 2, Fig 2).

According to the current literature, supportive nonverbal strategies were mostly used by HCPs to enhance interactions with AwHL [20–24,26,27,30,31]. Using gestures such as arm movements, hand movements, mutual gaze, eye contact, and writing has been reported as a supportive nonverbal communication strategy to facilitate the access of patients with hearing loss to the healthcare system [21,23,30]. Many emergency medical services recommend using hand signals, physical gestures, and body language [16,17,20,23]. People with hearing loss rely heavily on visual cues to understand speech, particularly under adverse hearing conditions [32]. Hyoguchi et al. (2016) recommended that pharmacists use nonverbal strategies to provide AwHL with necessary information about prescribed medicine. These strategies include gestures, facial expressions, and printed slides [31]. Individuals with hearing loss typically comprehend messages more effectively when they can both see and listen to the speaker, as opposed to when they can only hear the message. Such an audiovisual advantage can convey extra information, leading to better speech comprehension, particularly under adverse hearing conditions [33].

Effective verbal communication is a critical component of information exchanges. When AwHL fail to understand the spoken information conveyed by HCPs, communication breakdown can occur. As such, HCPs must collaborate with their patients and employ communication support to overcome these challenges [6,34,35]. Community HCPs are highly encouraged to employ supportive verbal strategies, including slower speech rates, shorter phrases, appropriate volume, and avoidance of complex medical terminologies when interacting with patients with hearing loss [29,32]. In addition, HCPs are advised to provide educational lectures tailored to their AwHL literacy levels when explaining medication-related information [31]. Therefore, healthcare professionals must familiarize themselves with these verbal techniques and implement them to enhance professional-patient communication. Using verbal support enables healthcare professionals to address the identified gaps in effectively communicating with AwHL [6].

Human support for communication has been accentuated in many studies, among which sign language interpreters and assistance were emphasized and recommended for healthcare workers in medicine, physiotherapy, nursing, nutrition, psychology, dentistry, and primary and emergency medical services [21,22,26–28]. The American Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) mandates that healthcare providers ensure equal healthcare treatment and effective communication for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing [35]. Despite this directive, deaf and AwHL still face significant communication barriers in healthcare [22, 35]. These barriers can result in negative healthcare events due to a lack of clear communication between AwHL and HCPs [27]. In a primary medical and mental healthcare context, Pendergrass et al. (2017) investigated nurse practitioners’ perspectives on the challenges and opportunities that arise when providing services to deaf individuals. Their findings showed that nurse practitioners prefer to use interpreters to support their visits [28]. Moreover, if other communication methods fail, nursing practitioners should consider seeking official single-language interpreters [26]. Ayala-Hernandez et al. (2021) attempted to study  the communication barriers between HCPs (including medicines, physiotherapists, nurses, nutritionists, psychologists, and dentists) and patients with hearing loss. The report suggested that AwHL should be provided with interpreters during their visits to healthcare services [22].Therefore, HCPs can use human support strategies to better understand AwHL’s clinical symptoms during medical histories and make better treatment decisions.

Environmental and physical adaptations can support interaction and lead to more successful and effective communication in diverse healthcare settings [26,29]. Stevens et al. (2019) conducted a survey of 1,581 self-report individuals with hearing loss in primary care settings. The clinical implications of this study necessitated adjustments aimed at improving communication, particularly in enhancing the interaction between community HCPs and patients [24]. This aim was achieved by ensuring appropriate lighting, clear speech, and implementing environmental modifications, such as using tactile or visual aids in waiting areas, installing noise-absorbing materials (carpeting and curtains), and avoiding the use of telephones for conveying important health information [24]. Other studies have indicated that the environment should be designed to accommodate individuals with hearing loss, including seating them near the receptionist, utilizing heavy draping or carpeting to minimize echoes, and employing visual cues in clinics and public health systems [23,26,29]. Stans et al. (2017) assert that healthcare professionals should be aware of the potential influence of environmental elements on conversations, because small adjustments to the physical environment have implications for rehabilitation and can contribute to a communication-friendly environment for conversations with people who find verbal communication challenging [36].

AwHL have the highest risk of experiencing social isolation, and using hearing aids may help overcome the loss of signal intensity and optimize speech intelligibility to maintain good interactions. In the healthcare context, the utility of technological support for AwHL can be accomplished through text messaging and email instead of phone calls, as well as employing the speakerphone function or a two-way headset [22,24,29,37].

Education and training in the field of hearing loss have been recommended to community HCPs, audiologists, nurses. This aim could be achieved by attending virtual knowledge transfer workshops focusing on hearing loss and short-term educational courses covering the basics of hearing aids [20,25,29]. Marquete et al. (2018) investigated the extent of knowledge and training among nurses, nurse technicians, and nursing assistants regarding effective communication with individuals with hearing loss. The authors found that communication barriers with deaf individuals are often caused by HCPs’ lack of knowledge of how to communicate, and that this is due to the absence of training opportunities [27]. Accordingly, it has been recommended that registered nurses and emergency medical service workers attend communication training courses focused on hearing loss, which can take the form of online knowledge transfer workshops or short-term training programs [21,25].

Psychological support and counseling can be used by HCPs to address AwHL’s psychosocial issues [23,29]. It is recommended that HCPs consult with patients about the communication breakdowns they experience due to hearing loss, show empathy, and discuss their agreements and disagreements with patients while identifying negative emotions that arise due to hearing loss. Studies with community health workers, audiologists, and neurologists reveal that an absence of communication support in the workplace has a detrimental effect on the well-being of individuals with hearing loss, resulting in feelings of isolation and frustration [23,29]. To better support individuals with hearing loss in healthcare systems, it is crucial to develop psychological support programs that consider the specific needs of this population [38].

This scoping review contributes to an understanding of supportive communication strategies for healthcare providers in hearing healthcare and makes recommendations for optimizing communication in specific care situations. Any profession can use communication support, but its use will depend on the context of each professional. Future research could investigate the broader impact of combining verbal and nonverbal communication strategies. It could also examine whether using multiple supportive communication strategies simultaneously yields better outcomes in long-term care facilities and hospitals than using single strategies. Using this study’s results, we developed an evidence-based brochure by gathering information from current research, which can be shared with healthcare providers in hospitals, rehabilitation centers, clinics, pharmacies, and other relevant institutions associated with the Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal (IUGM).

Limitations and strengths

This scoping review had some limitations. Studies published in languages other than English with no accompanying translation were excluded. Language bias was present in this review because most of the included studies were in English and were performed with convenience samples from health professionals and/or patients, which may not be representative of all communication supports used by people with hearing loss.

Conclusion

Healthcare professionals can utilize various communication supports to interact with adults who experience hearing loss. These supports include nonverbal, verbal, human, environmental and physical, technological, education and training, and psychological support and counseling. The choice of communication supports will depend on the context (place and situation) in which each professional finds themselves. According to the studies included in this scoping review, the most frequently utilized concepts were nonverbal, verbal, and human support.

References

  1. 1.
    Wilson BS, Tucci DL. Addressing the global burden of hearing loss. Lancet. 2021;397(10278):945–7. pmid:33714376
  2. 2.
    Sheffield AM, Smith RJH. The epidemiology of deafness. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2019 Sep;9(9):a033258. pmid:30249598
  3. 3.
    Goman AM, Lin FR. Prevalence of hearing loss by severity in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):1820–2. pmid:27552261
  4. 4.
    Mick P, Hämäläinen A, Kolisang L, Pichora-Fuller M, Phillips N, Guthrie D. The prevalence of hearing, vision, and dual sensory loss in older Canadians: An analysis of data from the Canadian longitudinal study on aging. Can J Aging. 2021;40(1):1–22. pmid:32546290
  5. 5.
    World Health Organization. World report on hearing. World Health Organization; 2021.
  6. 6.
    Pinsonnault-Skvarenina A, Lacerda A de, Hotton M, Gagné J. Communication with older adults in times of a pandemic: Practical suggestions for the health care professionals. Public Health Reviews. 2021;42:1604046. PMID: 34168899
  7. 7.
    Scheier DB. Barriers to health care for people with hearing loss: a review of the literature. J N Y State Nurses Assoc. 2009;40(1):4–10. pmid:19835226
  8. 8.
    Powell W, Jacobs JA, Noble W, Bush ML, Snell-Rood C. Rural adult perspectives on impact of hearing loss and barriers to care. J Community Health. 2019;44(4):668–74. pmid:30949965
  9. 9.
    Wilson J, Hickson L, Worrall L. Use of communication strategies by adults with hearing impairment. Asia Pac J Speech Lang Hear. 1998;3(1):29–42.
  10. 10.
    Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Lunney M, Donald M, Howarth T, Evans J, et al. Associations between hearing loss and clinical outcomes: population-based cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;61:102068. pmid:37434743
  11. 11.
    Wells T, Nickels L, Rush S, Musich S, Wu L, Bhattarai G. Characteristics and health outcomes associated with hearing loss and hearing aid use among older adults. J Aging Health. 2020;32(7–8):724–34. pmid:31092107
  12. 12.
    DeVoe J, Wallace L, Fryer Jr G. Measuring patients’ perceptions of communication with healthcare providers: Do differences in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics matter? Health Expect. 2009;12(1):70–80. pmid:19250153
  13. 13.
    Reeves D, Kokoruwe B. Communication and communication support in primary care: A survey of deaf patients. Audiol Med. 2005;3(2):95–107.
  14. 14.
    King J, Simmons-Mackie N. Communication supports and best practices. Top Lang Dis. 2017;37(4):348–60.
  15. 15.
    Yet AXJ, Hapuhinne V, Eu W, Chong EY-C, Palanisamy UD. Communication methods between physicians and deaf patients: a scoping review. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(9):2841–9. pmid:35577636
  16. 16.
    Murakami G, Imanaka Y, Kobuse H, Lee J, Goto E. Patient perceived priorities between technical skills and interpersonal skills: their influence on correlates of patient satisfaction. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(3):560–8. pmid:20438604
  17. 17.
    Jenstad LM, Donnelly M. Hearing care for elders: a personal reflection on participatory action learning with primary care providers. Am J Audiol. 2015;24(1):23–30. pmid:25551627
  18. 18.
    Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
  19. 19.
    Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. pmid:20854677
  20. 20.
    Al-Wathinani A, Al-Sudairi N, Alhallaf M, Albaqami N, Alghamdi A, Turunen-Taheri S. Raising awareness of hearing and communication disorders among emergency medical services students: Are knowledge translation workshops useful? Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2023;17(null):e163. pmid:35616051
  21. 21.
    Rotoli JM, Hancock S, Park C, Demers-Mcletchie S, Panko TL, Halle T, et al. Emergency medical services communication barriers and the deaf American sign language user. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2022;26(3):437–45. pmid:34060987
  22. 22.
    Ayala-Hernandez J, Lopera-Escobar A, Cadavid-Mazo S, Pulgarin-Ossa D. The interaction between the healthcare professional and the deaf person. Experiences from the Colombian healthcare system. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2021;33(6):993–1004.
  23. 23.
    Harris MJ, Atkinson JR, Judd K, Bergson M, Mummery CJ. Assessing deaf patients in the neurology clinic. Pract Neurol. 2020;20(2):132–8. pmid:31757818
  24. 24.
    Stevens MN, Dubno JR, Wallhagen MI, Tucci DL. Communication and healthcare: self-reports of people with hearing loss in primary care settings. Clin Gerontol. 2019;42(5):485–94. pmid:29702039
  25. 25.
    Ruesch AL. Exploring an educational assessment tool to measure registered nurses’ knowledge of hearing impairment and effective communication strategies: A USA study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018;28:144–9. pmid:29096117
  26. 26.
    Orrie S, Motsohi T. Challenges experienced by healthcare workers in managing patients with hearing impairment at a primary health care setting: a descriptive case study. South Af Fam Pract. 2018;60(6):207–11.
  27. 27.
    Francisqueti Marquete V, Ramos Costa M, Ferraz Teston E. Communication with hearing impaired people from the perspective of health professionals. Revista Baiana de Enfermagem. 2018;32.
  28. 28.
    Pendergrass KM, Nemeth L, Newman SD, Jenkins CM, Jones EG. Nurse practitioner perceptions of barriers and facilitators in providing health care for deaf American sign language users: a qualitative socio-ecological approach. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2017;29(6):316–23. pmid:28419769
  29. 29.
    Sánchez D, Adamovich S, Ingram M, Harris F, de Zapien J, Sánchez A, et al. The potential in preparing community health workers to address hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(06):562–74. pmid:28590899
  30. 30.
    Ekberg K, Hickson L, Grenness C. Conversation breakdowns in the audiology clinic: the importance of mutual gaze. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017;52(3):346–55. pmid:27558299
  31. 31.
    Hyoguchi N, Kobayashi D, Kubota T, Shimazoe T. Effects on deaf patients of medication education by pharmacists. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2016;21(4):416–21. pmid:27262170
  32. 32.
    Jesse A, Janse E. Audiovisual benefit for recognition of speech presented with single-talker noise in older listeners. Lang Cogn Process. 2012;27(7–8):1167–91.
  33. 33.
    Woodhouse L, Hickson L, Dodd B. Review of visual speech perception by hearing and hearing‐impaired people: clinical implications. Int J Lang ication Disord. 2009;44(3):253–70. pmid:18821117
  34. 34.
    Chauvette L, Pinsonnault-Skvarenina A, Sharp A, Gagné J, Lacerda A, Hotton M. Perceptions of adults with hearing loss about the communication difficulties generated by the COVID-19 preventive measures: A qualitative study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2023;66(12):5109–28. pmid:37934877
  35. 35.
    Parker Harris S, Gould R, Ojok P, Fujiura G, Jones R, Olmstead IV A. Scoping review of the Americans with disabilities act: what research exists, and where do we go from here?. Disabil Stud Q. 2014;34(3).
  36. 36.
    Stans S, Dalemans R, de Witte L, Smeets H, Beurskens A. The role of the physical environment in conversations between people who are communication vulnerable and health-care professionals: a scoping review. Disab Rehabil. 2017;39(25):2594–605. pmid:27917683
  37. 37.
    Palmer C, Mulla R, Dervin E, Coyan K. HearCARE: Hearing and Communication Assistance for Resident Engagement. Semin Hear. 2017;38(2):184–97. pmid:28522893
  38. 38.
    Southall K, Jennings M, Gagné J. Factors that influence disclosure of hearing loss in the workplace. International Journal of Audiology. 2011;50(10):699–707. pmid:21812633

link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *