What is the prevalence of abuse in the deaf/hard of hearing population?

Wakeland, Elizabeth; Austen, Sally; Rose, John

doi:10.1080/14789949.2017.1416659

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are also higher risks for neglect notifications (1999-2008 birth cohort) and physical abuse substantiations (2004-2008 birth cohort) amongst children with moderate (or worse) HI. These findings are consistent with previous studies which have reported higher risk for neglect and physical abuse for children with HI [3,5,45]. These same studies also found a higher risk of emotional abuse amongst children with HI which was not demonstrated in our study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…International studies report an increased risk of maltreatment for children with disabilities [1][2][3][4], including children with hearing impairment (HI) [3][4][5]. Studies with hearing impaired children suggest that difficulties with communication may result in frustration and stress in parent-child relationships, leading to increased use of physical discipline [3,[6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies with hearing impaired children suggest that difficulties with communication may result in frustration and stress in parent-child relationships, leading to increased use of physical discipline [3,[6][7][8][9]. However studies of the association between hearing impairment and child maltreatment [3][4][5] do not differentiate between sensorineural and conductive HI [10] and may be missing more nuanced strategies to prevent child maltreatment. Sensorineural hearing loss in children may be genetic, or the result of accident, toxins or infections and is not readily treated [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The link between hearing impairment and child maltreatment among Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory of Australia: is there an opportunity for a public health approach in child protection?

Guthridge

et al. 2020

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background International studies provide evidence of an association between child disabilities, including hearing impairment (HI), and child maltreatment. There are high prevalences of ear disease with associated HI, and child maltreatment among Australian Aboriginal children, but the link between HI and child maltreatment is unknown. This study investigates the association between HI and child maltreatment for Aboriginal children living in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of 3895 Aboriginal school-aged children (born between 1999 and 2008) living in remote NT communities. The study used linked individual-level information from health, education and child protection services. The outcome variables were child maltreatment notifications and substantiations. The key explanatory variable, HI, was based on audiometric assessment. The Kaplan–Meier estimator method was used in univariate analysis; Cox proportional hazards regression was used in multivariable analysis. Results A majority of the study cohort lived in very remote (94.5%) and most disadvantaged (93.1%) regions. Among all children in the study cohort, 56.1% had a record of either HI or unilateral hearing loss (UHL), and for those with a history of contact with child protection services (n = 2757), 56.7% had a record of HI/UHL (n = 1564). In the 1999–2003 birth cohort, by age 12 years, 53.5% of children with a record of moderate or worse HI had at least one maltreatment notification, compared to 47.3% of children with normal hearing. In the 2004–2008 cohort, the corresponding results were 83.4 and 71.7% respectively. In multivariable analysis, using the full cohort, children with moderate or worse HI had higher risk of any child maltreatment notification (adjusted Hazard Ratios (adjHR): 1.16, 95% CI:1.04–1.30), notification for neglect (adjHR:1.17, 95% CI:1.04–1.31) and substantiation (adjHR:1.20, 95% CI:1.04–1.40), than children with normal hearing. In the 2004–2008 birth cohort, children with moderate or worse HI had higher risk of a substantiated episode of physical abuse (adjHR:1.47, 95% CI:1.07–2.03) than children with normal hearing. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate the urgent need for HI and child maltreatment prevention strategies through raised community awareness and inter-agency collaboration. Effective information-sharing between service providers is a critical first step to a public health approach in child protection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The link between hearing impairment and child maltreatment among Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory of Australia: is there an opportunity for a public health approach in child protection?

Guthridge

et al. 2020

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The finding that deaf individuals experience sexual abuse more often than their hearing counterparts is also supported by the literature (Anderson, et al, 2018;Johnson, et al, 2018;Mousley & Chaudoir, 2018;Wakeland, et al, 2017). Other factors, such as witnessing violence, intimate partner physical and emotional violence, childhood neglect, physical abuse, and emotional abuse are associated with lower resilience and lower levels of well-being in other studies of deaf individuals (Abajobir, et al, 2017;Anderson, et al, 2018;Mousley & Chaudoir, 2018;Wakeland, et al, 2017); however, this study only found sexual abuse to be a significant factor. The reasons for this are unclear and need further follow-up.…”

Section: Are There Significant Differences Between Deaf and Hearing P...supporting

confidence: 78%

“…Demographic variables, such as race, gender, and age were collected to describe the characteristics of the sample and because of their association in the literature with well-being, resilience, and negative life events (Abajobir, et al, 2017;Anderson, et al, 2018;Crowe, 2019a;Crowe, 2019b;Embree, et al, 2017;Iacoviello & Charney, 2020;Kushalnagar, et al, 2019;McKenzie & Reed, 2017;Wakeland, et al, 2017;Ziggi, et al, 2020). The Flesch-Kincaid grade level for the demographic questions is grade 3.4.…”

Section: Demographic Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative Life Experiences, Substance Use, Well-Being, and Resilience: A Comparison of Deaf and Hearing Adults

Crowe

2022

IJonSES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals who are deaf and use American Sign Language (ASL) as their primary mode of communication experience unique negative life experiences, such as lack of communication, limited access to services, marginalization, and discrimination, that can adversely impact resilience and psychological well-being. In addition, deaf individuals experience higher rates of intimate partner violence, poly-victimization, sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, and unemployment. These negative life experiences can sometimes be accompanied by maladaptive behaviors, such as substance use. Resilience and a positive sense of well-being can help to mitigate adverse life events. This survey research utilizes a sample of 206 deaf participants, whose primary language is ASL, and hearing participants to examine the relationships between negative life experiences, substance use, resilience, and well-being. Findings indicate: 1) deaf participants reported experiencing several negative life events significantly more often than their hearing counterparts, specifically being sent to jail or prison, having a serious physical illness, and sexual abuse by a partner than hearing participants; 2) deaf participants reported more experiences of having an abortion or miscarriage and parental separation or divorce as children than their hearing counterparts; 3) deaf individuals reported higher marijuana use than their hearing counterparts, but less use of stimulants, inhalants, and prescription drug abuse; 4) experiences of mental illness was significantly associated with resilience and well-being; and 5) deaf and hearing participants had similar scores in resilience and well-being. The author identifies strengths and limitations of the study and discusses implications for future research.

show abstract

Interpersonal Grammar in British Sign Language

Rudge¹

2021

Interpersonal Grammar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These conventions are covered by a Creative Commons licence where anyone can copy, distribute, display or modify the work as they wish, with attribution from the original source.1 Systemic Functional glossing conventionsConventions for interlinear unit-by-unit glosses for lexicogrammar.Interlinear unit-by-unit glosses give information about the functions, classes and lexical translations for linguistic items (potentially of any extent). To date Systemic Functional linguists have used a variety of different types of notation and glossing across publications. The different information and level of detail provided often makes it difficult to compare descriptions across languages and contrast alternative descriptions of the same language; it also risks producing misunderstandings and difficulties in comprehension (see Lehmann 1982 for similar concerns about morphemic glossing outside SFL). Nonetheless, there are many conventions that are shared across the research community, but these are not necessarily used in each paper. The main purpose of this document is to make the most widely used conventions explicit and help standardize Systemic Functional glossing. Some innovations are suggested, however these are relatively minor and mostly optional.The glossing conventions detailed here are intended for descriptions informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics (hereafter SFL), especially those involving tiers of function structures. They are designed to complement rather than replace the 'Leipzig' morpheme-by-morpheme glossing rules and can be deployed in conjunction with the Leipzig rules. This is especially important for analyses including morphemic glossing and/or papers with an intended audience beyond the SFL community. As these conventions complement the Leipzig rules, a number of them adopt the strategy of generalizing the Leipzig conventions from morphemic glossing to the glossing of other units. If the analysis requires only a morphemic glossing, without specifying function structures, the Leipzig rules should be used. The conventions developed here are however written with an understanding that grammatical distinctions are regularly distributed across multiple ranks and a single tier of morphemic glossing is not explicit about this distribution. The Leipzig glossing rules can be found here: https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf An author's arguments and readers' needs will affect the level of detail required. Accordingly, like the Leipzig rules, the conventions specified here allow some flexibility with various options noted. In the spirit of SFL, the conventions should be interpreted as a set of resources for glossing, rather than a list of rules.

show abstract

What is the prevalence of abuse in the deaf/hard of hearing population?

Cited by 8 publications

References 27 publications

The link between hearing impairment and child maltreatment among Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory of Australia: is there an opportunity for a public health approach in child protection?

The link between hearing impairment and child maltreatment among Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory of Australia: is there an opportunity for a public health approach in child protection?

Negative Life Experiences, Substance Use, Well-Being, and Resilience: A Comparison of Deaf and Hearing Adults

Interpersonal Grammar in British Sign Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About