Two included studies were Deaf-led or user-centred, developing simulation content from data gathered with Deaf communities from the start¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Two studies (Anderson et al., 2020; Blok et al., 2023) involved Deaf people fully from initial project stages, collecting focus-group and forum data used to develop simulation scripts and videos. → Terry Julia 2025

Evidence¶

Terry Julia 2025¶

Terry Julia, Wilks Rachel, Davies Joanne. (2025). Simulated learning interventions to improve communication and practice with deaf and hard of hearing patients: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Advances in Health Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-025-10452-5

q3 · i? · review · r3

Qualitative synthesis of intervention development across the six studies. Two studies were Deaf-led/user-centred; two included one team member with lived experience of deafness but "lacked detail about roles"; two were developed solely by faculty staff. Anderson and Blok "began projects by collecting data from Deaf communities in focus groups and forums".

"All studies detailed how they developed and designed the Deaf patient simulation, with two studies described as Deaf-led/user-centred showing involvement from initial project stages where there was consultation and data gathering with Deaf communities"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Simulation interventions showed positive usability and feasibility, with technical preparation needs sometimes causing non-completion — related
• Two included studies allowed participants to act on feedback from an earlier simulation attempt, enabling a 'second go' — related
• Included studies used a varied range of simulation modalities, from Deaf standardized patients to VR with manipulated audio and 360 video — related
• There is no evidence of public patient involvement in any of the reviewed studies — reports the opposite