Yee Erika J, Kern Matthew, Hsu Chiu-Hsieh, Moini Natasha A, Ungor Ashley, Yee Ryan H, Klahr Max, Kern Karl, Beskind Daniel L
Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine - Tucson, Tucson, USA.
Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA.
Cureus. 2024 Dec 2;16(12):e74990. doi: 10.7759/cureus.74990. eCollection 2024 Dec.
Background The use of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) by lay rescuers can reduce the time to defibrillation and improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). AEDs use voice prompts to guide users through the defibrillation process, creating a potential barrier for deaf and hard-of-hearing (HoH) individuals. The objective of this study is to assess familiarity with and concerns regarding AED use among members of these communities. Methods A 19-question Qualtrics survey was distributed to adults in the United States who self-identified as deaf or HoH. The questions included seven demographics, eight yes/no/unsure, three Likert scales, and one multiple-response question. Quantitative analysis was performed using 95% confidence intervals to compare familiarity with and concerns about AED use among deaf, HoH, and combined groups of respondents. Results Of the responses, 500 met the inclusion criteria; 130 (26%) self-identified as deaf, and 370 (74%) self-identified as HoH. Around 460 (92%) were in the 18-40 age group. AED recognition was high among both deaf (90.77%) and HoH (84.59%) respondents, though deaf respondents were less likely than HoH respondents to have seen an AED in a public place (p=0.03) or know how to safely use one (p=0.001). In both the deaf and HoH groups, the top concern regarding AED use was that AEDs were too technical or complicated (61.86% and 56.8%). Of all respondents, 36.4% reported that AEDs were not user-friendly (p=0.034). All participants identified some concerns regarding AED use in emergencies. In addition, 56.15% of deaf and 39.19% of HoH respondents were concerned that AED use is potentially dangerous (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in knowing when to use an AED or where to find more information about AEDs. Conclusion Deaf and HoH people have specific concerns about AEDs, including the safety and complexity of operating an AED and the accessibility (user-friendliness). In this study, the deaf population is less familiar with using an AED than the HoH population. Possible interventions to address concerns of the deaf and HoH communities include AED training given in American Sign Language (ASL) and updating AED designs with improved visual and non-verbal directions.
背景 非专业救援人员使用自动体外除颤器(AED)可缩短除颤时间,并提高院外心脏骤停(OHCA)患者的生存率。AED使用语音提示来指导使用者完成除颤过程,这对失聪和听力障碍(HoH)人群构成了潜在障碍。本研究的目的是评估这些群体成员对AED使用的熟悉程度和担忧。方法 向在美国自我认定为失聪或听力障碍的成年人发放了一份包含19个问题的Qualtrics调查问卷。问题包括七个关于人口统计学的问题、八个是/否/不确定问题、三个李克特量表问题和一个多项选择问题。使用95%置信区间进行定量分析,以比较失聪、听力障碍及综合受访者群体对AED使用的熟悉程度和担忧程度。结果 在回复中,500份符合纳入标准;130人(26%)自我认定为失聪,370人(74%)自我认定为听力障碍。约460人(92%)年龄在18至40岁之间。失聪受访者(90.77%)和听力障碍受访者(84.59%)对AED的认知度都很高,不过失聪受访者在公共场所看到AED的可能性低于听力障碍受访者(p=0.03),知道如何安全使用AED的可能性也低于听力障碍受访者(p=0.001)。在失聪和听力障碍群体中,对AED使用最主要的担忧都是AED技术含量过高或过于复杂(分别为61.86%和56.8%)。在所有受访者中,36.4%表示AED对用户不友好(p=0.034)。所有参与者都指出了对在紧急情况下使用AED的一些担忧。此外,56.15%的失聪受访者和39.19%的听力障碍受访者担心使用AED存在潜在危险(p<0.001)。两组在知道何时使用AED或在哪里可以找到更多关于AED的信息方面没有统计学上的显著差异。结论 失聪和听力障碍人群对AED有特定的担忧,包括操作AED的安全性和复杂性以及易用性(用户友好性)。在本研究中,失聪人群比听力障碍人群对使用AED的熟悉程度更低。解决失聪和听力障碍群体担忧的可能干预措施包括用美国手语(ASL)进行AED培训,以及更新AED设计,提供更好的视觉和非语言指导。