This paper presents a short literature review of four studies examining the mental healthcare experiences of deaf individuals. Drawing on research spanning from 1988 to 2005, the review highlights persistent patterns of bias, miscommunication, and inadequate accommodation that deaf patients encounter in psychiatric and community mental health settings. The paper discusses firsthand narratives, interpreter ethics, and survey findings to show that deaf patients frequently receive more restrictive treatment, are denied appropriate communication supports, and report significant mistrust of healthcare providers. The review concludes with recommendations for improved professional training, expanded interpreter education, and greater self-advocacy among deaf patients.
This paper demonstrates effective thematic literature synthesis. Rather than simply summarizing each article in sequence, the author uses each source to build a cumulative argument — showing that the problem of inadequate deaf mental healthcare has persisted across time, geography, and care contexts. The inclusion of a direct patient quote near the end grounds abstract findings in lived experience.
The paper opens with a framing introduction that states the core concern and previews the evidence. It then moves through each of the four studies in roughly chronological order, with the most personal account (DeVinney) placed second to establish emotional stakes early. The interpreter challenges and patient perception sections broaden the scope before the final section consolidates recommendations drawn from across all four sources.
Individuals who are battling depression, anxiety, or a similar mental health issue are in great emotional pain and distress. They often have a diminished ability to communicate their needs and, especially, to push back against someone who comes across as forceful or intimidating. Yet the four studies in this short literature review indicate that professional care for the mentally ill, although improved over the years, still has a long way to go in satisfying the well-being of patients. Adding to this concern is the fact that all four articles demonstrate not only the insensitivity but the active discrimination that healthcare workers direct toward individuals with physical disabilities — particularly deafness. One would hope that people who entered the healthcare field, especially mental health, would be less biased and more open to those who face such challenges. These articles prove otherwise.
The article by Jeffrey Dickert, published in 1988, showed that despite the fact that healthcare professionals in a mental healthcare facility hold more positive attitudes toward deaf people than members of the general public, these same employees evaluate deaf patients who are mentally ill differently than those who are only mentally ill. The deaf patients received more restrictive forms of treatment and greater supervision. Apparently, healthcare workers either misread the communication difficulties of deaf patients as further evidence of mental illness, or acted on innate biases against deaf individuals — or both.
Because Dickert's study was conducted in 1988, it was reasonable to wonder whether conditions had improved over the following two decades. The next article — written in 2002 by Janet DeVinney and Stephen Murphy — was even more disconcerting. It is a first-hand narrative of a deaf and severely depressed woman with suicidal thoughts who was actually working in a community support program designed to help individuals like herself. Because of her training, she brought a better-than-average perspective on mental healthcare to her own hospitalization.
Despite this, DeVinney was repeatedly met with misunderstanding and ignorance bordering on malice. Her efforts to explain that she could not hear her name being called, the doctor's questions, or the group discussions were ignored. Her request for a TTY to communicate with her family was only granted after her husband came to the hospital on her behalf. Her request for interpreters was also ignored. Regardless of her deafness, DeVinney should have had more say in her own care and should have been listened to rather than talked at. As she notes at the end of her article, the irony is that even when mental healthcare facilities claim to be open to people with disabilities, those individuals are still not genuinely understood.
The report "Challenges of Mental Health Interpreting When Working with Deaf Patients" (2005) shows that misunderstandings about mentally ill deaf individuals are not limited to the United States — this is an occurrence in other Western nations as well. The article also demonstrates that better education is needed both by professionals who serve deaf people and by those whose primary responsibility is providing care to the mentally ill. A review of the literature on this issue, focused on adolescents rather than adults, reveals a variety of challenges that interpreters and therapists face when working with deaf patients. For example, interpreters often lack the precise terminology and nuanced understanding of certain words and phrases needed to accurately convey what clinicians are saying to deaf patients.
Furthermore, although interpreters are expected to abide by a Code of Ethics governing their role as communication facilitators, many interpreters appear — as the authors state — to "step outside" their traditional role in therapeutic contexts. Reasons include feeling uncomfortable with the content being discussed in therapy sessions, commenting on a deaf patient's linguistic capabilities, and issues related to the deaf community's status as a linguistic and cultural minority group.
The authors conclude that additional training could rectify much of this misunderstanding, alongside more targeted research. They make the following specific suggestions: First, interpreters and therapists should take the time needed to prepare for and debrief after therapy sessions, ensuring that therapeutic goals are clear, linguistic and cultural issues are addressed, and emotional and psychological reactions are acknowledged. Second, there is a need for a dedicated Code of Ethics governing the interpretation of mental health content in these settings. Third, therapists require training that encompasses knowledge of the cognitive, social, emotional, and psychological development of deaf people. Fourth, interpreters need specialized preparation for therapeutic contexts. Finally, both therapists and interpreters should collaborate with professional organizations in the deaf community to offer informative and psychoeducational workshops for deaf members, providing further insight into the therapist's role, the purpose and techniques of therapy, and the function of interpreters and families in the therapeutic process.
Given the documented need for better training, education, and understanding among healthcare professionals and interpreters, it comes as no surprise that deaf individuals may be reluctant to seek mental health support when they need it, or may feel greater fear, mistrust, and frustration than the general public when encountering mental healthcare providers. This is precisely what was found in a study by Steinberg et al. (2005), "Health Care System Accessibility: Experiences and Perceptions of Deaf People." The authors collected information on healthcare communication, perceptions of clinician attitudes, and both positive and negative encounters with mental healthcare providers. They found that deaf individuals frequently felt mistrust toward these providers.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.