Conducting semi-structured American Sign Language interviews with 17 Deaf trauma survivors, this pilot study explored Deaf individuals’ trauma experiences and whether these experiences generally align with trauma in the hearing population. Most commonly reported traumas were physical assault, sudden unexpected deaths, and “other” very stressful events. Although some “other” events overlap with traumas in the general population, many are unique to Deaf people (e.g., corporal punishment at oral/aural school if caught using sign language, utter lack of communication with hearing parents). These findings suggest that Deaf individuals may experience developmental traumas distinct to being raised in a hearing world. Such traumas are not captured by available trauma assessments, nor are they considered in evidence-based trauma treatments.

Rates of posttraumatic stress are elevated in individuals who have experienced childhood and/or cumulative trauma, and trauma appraisals have been suggested as a possible mediator of this effect. This study tested the proposed mediating role of trauma appraisals between both childhood and cumulative trauma, and two markers of trauma-related distress; posttraumatic stress and depression. Mediation models were developed and tested with data collected from a sample of trauma-exposed, treatment receiving adults (N = 106). Trauma appraisals fully mediated relationships between childhood trauma and PTSD/depression. Appraisals also mediated the relationships between cumulative trauma and depression. When appraisal subscales were simultaneously entered, alienation appraisals were the only significant mediator of these relationships. The study found support for the proposed mediating role of trauma appraisals between different forms of trauma and trauma related distress. Alienation appraisals were particularly emphasised.

Objective Deaf trauma survivors are one of the most underserved populations in behavioral healthcare and experience significant obstacles to seeking help. Repeated encounters with these barriers fuel negative perceptions and avoidance of behavioral health treatment. The current study sought to explore Deaf trauma survivors' help-seeking experiences and elicit their recommendations for improving Deaf behavioral health services in Massachusetts. Method We conducted semi-structured American Sign Language interviews with 16 trauma-exposed Deaf individuals, including questions from the Life Events Checklist, PTSD Symptom Scale Interview, and questions about Deaf individuals' help-seeking behaviors. Qualitative responses regarding help-seeking experiences were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results In the aftermath of trauma, our participants emphasized a desire to work with a signing provider who is highly knowledgeable about Deaf culture, history, and experience, and to interact with clinic staff who possess basic sign language skills and training in Deaf awareness. Most stressed the need for providers to better outreach into the Deaf community – to provide education about trauma, to describe available treatment resources, and to prove one's qualifications. Participants also provided suggestions for how behavioral health clinics can better protect Deaf survivors' confidentiality in a small-community context. Conclusions Deaf-friendly trauma treatment should incorporate the components of trauma-informed care, but also carefully consider key criteria expressed by our participants: direct signed communication; understanding of Deaf history and experience; stringent practices to protect confidentiality; provider visibility in the community; and reliance on peer support and Deaf role models in treatment interventions.

One of the most understudied health disparity populations in the United States is the Deaf community-a sociolinguistic minority group of at least 500,000 individuals who communicate using American Sign Language. Research within this population is lacking, in part, due to researchers' use of methodologies that are inaccessible to Deaf sign language users. Traditional qualitative methods were developed to collect and analyze participants' spoken language. There is, therefore, a paradigm shift that must occur to move from an auditory data schema to one that prioritizes the collection and analysis of visual data. To effectively navigate this shift when working with Deaf sign language users, there are unique linguistic and sociopolitical considerations that should be taken into account. The current article explores these considerations and outlines an emerging method of conducting qualitative analysis that, we argue, has the potential to enhance qualitative researchers' work regardless of the population of focus.

Deaf individuals experience significant obstacles to participating in behavioral health research when careful consideration is not given to accessibility during the design of study methodology. To inform such considerations, we conducted an exploratory secondary analysis of a mixed-methods study that originally explored 16 Deaf trauma survivors' help-seeking experiences. Our objective was to identify key findings and qualitative themes from consumers' own words that could be applied to the design of behavioral clinical trials methodology. In many ways, the themes that emerged were not wholly dissimilar from the general preferences of members of other sociolinguistic minority groups-a need for communication access, empathy, respect, strict confidentiality procedures, trust, and transparency of the research process. Yet, how these themes are applied to the inclusion of Deaf research participants is distinct from any other sociolinguistic minority population, given Deaf people's unique sensory and linguistic characteristics. We summarize our findings in a preliminary "Checklist for Designing Deaf Behavioral Clinical Trials" to operationalize the steps researchers can take to apply Deaf-friendly approaches in their empirical work.

One of the most understudied health disparity populations in the United States is the Deaf community, a sociolinguistic minority group of more than 500,000 individuals who communicate via American Sign Language. Research on Deaf health disparities is lacking due to inaccessible recruitment, sampling, and data collection procedures, as well as the fundamental disconnect between medical and cultural views of Deaf people. A potential starting place for addressing inaccessible research methods and mistrust of the biomedical research community is the careful reconsideration of the traditional informed consent process, often a Deaf individual’s first point of contact with the research world. Yet, most Deaf individuals experience obstacles to engaging in informed consent due to differences in language and development compared to hearing individuals. In response to these issues, our team led a three-phase, formative, community-engaged approach to adapt the informed consent process and train research staff in the updated method so that all required components are properly communicated and understood. The goals of our work were to promote Deaf engagement in research about the Deaf community, increase the number of Deaf individuals who participate in general population biomedical research, and generalize our findings to improve research accessibility for the general population.

No abstract

The U.S. Deaf community-more than half a million Americans who communicate using American Sign Language (ASL)-experiences higher rates of trauma exposure and substance use disorder (SUD) than the general population. Yet there are no