No abstract

Developing successful sign language recognition, generation, and translation systems requires expertise in a wide range of fields, including computer vision, computer graphics, natural language processing, human-computer interaction, linguistics, and Deaf culture. Despite the need for deep interdisciplinary knowledge, existing research occurs in separate disciplinary silos, and tackles separate portions of the sign language processing pipeline. This leads to three key questions: 1) What does an interdisciplinary view of the current landscape reveal? 2) What are the biggest challenges facing the field? and 3) What are the calls to action for people working in the field? To help answer these questions, we brought together a diverse group of experts for a two-day workshop. This paper presents the results of that interdisciplinary workshop, providing key background that is often overlooked by computer scientists, a review of the state-of-the-art, a set of pressing challenges, and a call to action for the research community.Each group focused on the following questions:

This article examines the relationship between cultural affiliation and deaf adults' motivations for genetic testing for deafness in the first prospective, longitudinal study to examine the impact of genetic counseling and genetic testing on deaf adults and the deaf community. Participants (n = 256), classified as affiliating with hearing, Deaf, or both communities, rated interest in testing for 21 reasons covering 5 life domains. Findings suggest strong interest in testing to learn why they are deaf, but little interest in using it for decisions about a partner or having children. Culturally mediated variation was also demonstrated. Deaf and both communities groups viewed testing as useful for more life domains than the hearing community group. Deaf and both communities had similar motivations related to further exploration, understanding, or strengthening of deafness. Motivations related to "hearing" were also relevant for both communities. We conclude that cultural affiliation is an important factor for constructing motivations for genetic testing.

Introduction Deaf American Sign Language-users (ASL) have limited access to cancer genetics information they can readily understand, increasing risk for health disparities. We compared effectiveness of online cancer genetics information presented using a bilingual approach (ASL with English closed captioning) and a monolingual approach (English text). Hypothesis Bilingual modality would increase cancer genetics knowledge and confidence to create a family tree; education would interact with modality. Methods We used a block 2:1 randomized pre-post study design stratified on education. 150 Deaf ASL-users ≥18 years old with computer and internet access participated online; 100 (70 high, 30 low education) and 50 (35 high, 15 low education) were randomized to the bilingual and monolingual modalities. Modalities provide virtually identical content on creating a family tree, using the family tree to identify inherited cancer risk factors, understanding how cancer predisposition can be inherited, and the role of genetic counseling and testing for prevention or treatment. 25 True/False items assessed knowledge; a Likert scale item assessed confidence. Data were collected within 2 weeks before and after viewing the information. Results Significant interaction of language modality, education, and change in knowledge scores was observed (p=.01). High education group increased knowledge regardless of modality (Bilingual: p<.001; d=.56; Monolingual: p<.001; d=1.08). Low education group increased knowledge with bilingual (p<.001; d=.85), but not monolingual (p=.79; d=.08) modality. Bilingual modality yielded greater confidence creating a family tree (p=.03). Conclusions Bilingual approach provides a better opportunity for lower educated Deaf ASL-users to access cancer genetics information than a monolingual approach.

Empirical data on genetic counseling outcomes in the deaf population are needed to better serve this population. This study was an examination of genetics knowledge before and after culturally and linguistically appropriate pre-test genetic counseling in a diverse deaf adult sample. Individuals ≥18 years old with early-onset sensorineural deafness were offered connexin-26/30 testing and genetic counseling. Participants completed questionnaires containing 10 genetics knowledge items at baseline and following pre-test genetic counseling. The effects of genetic counseling, prior beliefs about etiology, and participant’s preferred language on genetics knowledge scores were assessed (n = 244). Pre-test genetic counseling (p = .0007), language (p < .0001), prior beliefs (p < .0001), and the interaction between counseling and beliefs (p = .035) were predictors of genetics knowledge. American Sign Language (ASL)-users and participants with “non-genetic/unknown” prior beliefs had lower knowledge scores than English-users and participants with “genetic” prior beliefs, respectively. Genetics knowledge improved after genetic counseling regardless of participants’ language; knowledge change was greater for the “non-genetic/unknown” beliefs group than the “genetic” beliefs group. ASL-users’ lower knowledge scores are consistent with evidence that ethnic and cultural minority groups have less genetics knowledge, perhaps from exposure and access disparities. Culturally and linguistically appropriate pre-test genetic counseling significantly improved deaf individuals’ genetics knowledge. Assessing deaf individuals’ prior beliefs is important for enhancing genetics knowledge.

Given the medical and cultural perspectives on deafness it is important to determine if genetic counselors’ attitudes toward deaf people can affect counseling sessions for deafness genes. One hundred fifty-eight genetic counselors recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv completed an online survey assessing attitudes toward deaf people and scenario-specific comfort levels discussing and offering genetic testing for deafness. Respondents with deaf/Deaf friends or who work in prenatal or pediatric settings had more positive attitudes toward deaf people than those without deaf/Deaf friends or those working in ‘other’ settings. More positive attitudes toward deaf people correlated with higher comfort level talking about genetic testing for the two scenarios involving culturally Deaf clients; and correlated with higher comfort level offering genetic testing to culturally Deaf clients wishing to have a deaf child. Attitudes and comfort level were not correlated in the scenarios involving hearing or non-culturally deaf clients. These results suggest that genetic counselors’ attitudes could affect information provision and the decision making process of culturally Deaf clients. Cultural sensitivity workshops in genetic counseling training programs that incorporate personal interactions with culturally Deaf individuals are recommended. Additional suggestions for fostering personal interactions are provided.

Limited data suggest that enhanced self-knowledge from genetic information related to non-medical traits can have a positive impact on psychological well-being. Deaf individuals undertake genetic testing for deaf genes to increase self-knowledge. Because deafness is considered a non-medical trait by many individuals, we hypothesized that deaf individuals receiving a genetic explanation for why they are deaf will experience increased psychological well-being. We report results from a prospective, longitudinal study to determine the impact of genetic testing (GJB2, Cx26; GJB6, Cx30) on perceived personal control (PPC), anxiety, and depression in deaf adults (N=209) assessed following pre-test genetic counseling as well as 1-month and 6-months following test result disclosure. Participants were classified as Cx positive (n=82) or Cx negative/inconclusive (n=127). There was significant evidence for Cx group differences in PPC and anxiety over time (PPC: Cx group*time interaction p=0.0007; anxiety: Cx group*time interaction p=0.002), where PPC scores were significantly higher, and anxiety scores were significantly lower for the Cx positive group relative to the negative/inconclusive group following test result disclosure. Compared to pre-test, PPC scores increased at 1-month (p=0.07) and anxiety scores decreased at 6-months for the Cx positive group (p=0.03). In contrast, PPC scores decreased (p=0.009, p<0.0001) and anxiety scores increased (p=0.09, p=0.02) for the Cx negative/inconclusive group at 1- and 6-months post test result disclosure. Genetic testing for deaf genes affects the psychological well-being of deaf individuals. Increasing deaf adults’ access to genetic testing may potentially enhance self-knowledge and increase psychological well-being for those who receive a genetic explanation, which could offer downstream health benefits.

BackgroundRecruiting deaf and hard-of-hearing participants, particularly sign language-users, for genetics health service research is challenging due to communication barriers, mistrust toward genetics, and researchers’ unfamiliarity with deaf people. Feelings of social exclusion and lack of social cohesion between researchers and the Deaf community are factors to consider. Social marketing is effective for recruiting hard-to-reach populations because it fosters social inclusion and cohesion by focusing on the targeted audience’s needs. For the deaf population this includes recognizing their cultural and linguistic diversity, their geography, and their systems for information exchange. Here we use concepts and language from social marketing to evaluate our effectiveness to engage a U.S. deaf population in a prospective, longitudinal genetic counseling and testing study.MethodsThe study design was interpreted in terms of a social marketing mix of Product, Price, Place, and Promotion. Price addressed linguistic diversity by including a variety of communication technologies and certified interpreters to facilitate communication; Place addressed geography by including community-based participation locations; Promotion addressed information exchange by using multiple recruitment strategies. Regression analyses examined the study design’s effectiveness in recruiting a culturally and linguistically diverse sample.Results271 individuals were enrolled, with 66.1% American Sign Language (ASL)-users, 19.9% ASL + English-users, 12.6% English-users. Language was significantly associated with communication technology, participation location, and recruitment. Videophone and interpreters were more likely to be used for communication between ASL-users and researchers while voice telephone and no interpreters were preferred by English-users (Price). ASL-users were more likely to participate in community-based locations while English-users preferred medically-based locations (Place). English-users were more likely to be recruited through mass media (Promotion) while ASL-users were more likely to be recruited through community events and to respond to messaging that emphasized inclusion of a Deaf perspective.ConclusionsThis study design effectively engaged the deaf population, particularly sign language-users. Results suggest that the deaf population’s cultural and linguistic diversity, geography, and forms of information exchange must be taken into account in study designs for successful recruitment. A social marketing approach that incorporates critical social determinants of health provides a novel and important framework for genetics health service research targeting specific, and hard-to-reach, underserved groups.