Abstract
Deaf awareness aims to promote understanding about Deaf and hard of hearing people, with the goal of reducing barriers between Deaf and hearing populations; and is particularly pertinent for health professional students as they need to learn to communicate effectively with a range of population groups. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of literature examining Deaf awareness programs provided to health professional students during their initial training. We searched four medical and public health databases and registers using terms related to Deaf awareness. We used the PRISMA-ScR reporting standards checklist for scoping reviews. We identified 10,198 citations, with 15 studies included in the final review. Searches were performed during August to September 2022, and April 2023. Studies were included provided they examined Deaf awareness content or programs within health professional education. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers who screened all abstracts using Rayyan software, followed by discussion to achieve knowledge synthesis and agreement. In all, a total of 15 articles from six countries were identified across health professional student disciplines including pharmacy, nursing, audiology, inter-professional and medical programs. The review found sparse evidence of research into Deaf awareness programs delivered to health professional students, with delivery often solely to small groups of students, indicating why so few students can access information about how to communicate effectively with Deaf and hard of hearing patients during their initial training programs. This scoping reviewed showed evidence of promising benefits for health professional students undertaking Deaf and hard of hearing awareness programs during their undergraduate education. The importance of communicating with Deaf and hard of hearing patients and attaining Deaf cultural competencies for health professional students should be investigated in future research.
Introduction
Deaf awareness training aims to promote understanding about Deaf and hard of hearing people, with the goal of reducing barriers between Deaf and hearing populations and combating discrimination. In this paper the terms Deaf and hard of hearing people will be used throughout.
Notably in health service and healthcare settings few staff have Deaf awareness training which leads to persistent health inequalities for Deaf and hard of hearing patients who often have poor experiences and outcomes in healthcare settings [1]. These negative experiences can relate to discrimination around booking procedures and face to face appointments, as well as assessments and testing visits [2, 3], often due to limited accessibility for communication options [4], with services unprepared and ill-equipped to meet the needs of Deaf and hard of hearing people [5]. As there are around 466 million people globally who are Deaf and hard of hearing [6], with this likely to increase to 900 million by 2050, it is imperative that health service experiences improve for this population group. It has been described as a silent epidemic with global efforts needed to address the unmet needs of Deaf and hard of hearing adults and children who experience poorer health and care [7].
The heterogeneity of Deaf and hard of hearing people are often not fully known to health staff [8] and that people who are Deaf and hard of hearing require a person-centred approach according to their communication needs. People who identify as culturally and profoundly Deaf may use a capital D for Deaf, with a lower case ‘d’ for deaf, more commonly used for people who are hard of hearing.
Health professional students may not be aware of their lack of knowledge about Deaf and hard of hearing patients and may have had limited exposure to this population group, and so may not appreciate the many healthcare barriers Deaf and hard of hearing people experience [9]. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that Deaf and hard of hearing people experience poorer health, with increased risk of preventable ill-health with chronic illness often undiagnosed and untreated, such as diabetes and cardiac disease [10]. Deaf and hard of hearing populations also have poorer health literacy [11] due to limited learning opportunities and inaccessible health-related materials. Many diverse groups are disadvantaged because of assumptions around health literacy that may relate to English not being a first language, ability to read and write, which in turn impacts on a person’s ability to understand healthcare and pharmacy directions and information [12]. Knowledge of Signed language or the use of telecommunication equipment, such as Sign language relay services is not prevalent in health providers [13]. Deaf awareness programs highlight the different forms of communication that Deaf and hard of hearing people may use [14], including sign language, lip reading, note taking and oral methods, but few health workers are aware of this.
Health professionals themselves have reported that their communication skills and knowledge of working with Deaf and hard of hearing people could be greatly improved [15]. Equally, Sign language interpreters report that Deaf and hard of hearing patients do not understand health providers instructions in nearly half of appointments, with few clinicians checking patient understanding [16] which suggests further exclusion and potential risk of misunderstanding with potentially increased health risks. If Deaf and hard of hearing patients wish to use a Sign language interpreter, it is likely that students will have little training in how to work with a Deaf patient and a Sign language interpreter, and that the importance of speaking directly with and facing the patient are essential [17]. Similarly, few health professional staff have used remote video interpreting services during health consultations [18], which involves either the health facility or the patient using a sign language interpreter via an app or remote video interpreting (either in a booked capacity or on-demand). Few health professionals or students know how members of Deaf and hard of hearing communities’ access health services, and specifically the barriers they experience, particularly for emergencies and care routes that may or may not be open to them [10].
Healthcare systems that have published accessible communication standards to drive change [19] and to improve the lives and life expectancy of people who need information to be communicated in an accessible way to meet their needs. However, in England a review conducted six months post publication of standards in England reported more than half of respondents had not noticed any improvement in access to health services [20]. Such standards intend to promote equal access to services for all population groups, specifically aiming for a consistent approach that includes identifying and meeting the communication and support needs of patients and families where needs relate to a disability [21]. Individual education providers may offer opportunities for students that challenge their knowledge about diversity, increase knowledge and communication, and break down stereotypes [22]. Certainly, there is a need for increased disability training in health professional education [23], with the most effective programs noted to be those that include people with disabilities themselves.
It is acknowledged that health professional students need to be trained in Deaf cultural competencies [8] so they develop relevant knowledge and skills about Deaf and hard of hearing culture that include intersectional characteristics. For example, a person may use a Signed language as their preferred communication method, some may prefer health literature in written form, but commonly literacy levels in Deaf and hard of hearing people are often lower than in hearing populations [24], so it is essential that health professional students learn to ask about preferred communication method for each individual. Students may demonstrate audist attitudes [25], meaning an attitude that results in a negative stigma toward anyone who does not hear, particularly if they lack experience of working with Deaf and hard of hearing patients.
The aim of this scoping review was to report on the published evidence of Deaf awareness programs experienced by health professional students during their initial training. Given the health inequalities that Deaf and hard of hearing people experience, we wanted to explore the range of interventions and approaches used with health professional students to address this knowledge gap.
Methods and analysis
Ethics statement
As this study only included published data, ethics approval was not sought. The methods and results are reported according to the relevant items of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist [26]. According to Verdejo et al. [27] the main aim of a scoping review is to identify and map the available evidence for a specific topic area. The approach to the review was based on Arksey and O’Malley’s framework [28] which consists of the following stages: i) identifying the research question; ii) identifying relevant studies; iii) selecting studies; iv) charting the data; and v) collating, summarising, and reporting the results.
Search strategy
A scoping review seeks to present an overview of a potentially large and diverse body of literature pertaining to a broad topic, whereas a systematic review attempts to collate empirical evidence from a relatively smaller number of studies [29]. This scoping review is not intended as a conclusive synthesis of evidence but does provide an overview of the evidence of Deaf awareness programs that exist, primarily for health professional students. The study has been funded by xxxxxx and was conducted in Wales, UK. It was not registered online. The overall project had a steering group which included lay members, Deaf and hearing professionals. The focus of the steering group was on the empirical aspects of our study and building a Deaf awareness course for Wales, UK, with this scoping review discussed at early meetings, and members contributing ideas for search terms.
Identifying the research question
The core aim of this scoping review was to find out what is the existing evidence on Deaf awareness programs that are included in health professional education training. Deaf and hard of hearing people’s experiences in health services and poor health literacy are frequently linked to the poor knowledge of health professionals about how to communicate with Deaf and hard of hearing people; including a lack of training for medical and nursing students, and students studying to become allied health professionals [8,11,30].
Identifying relevant studies
The scoping review research question was left intentionally broad. The evidence was searched using four electronic databases, registers and key journals and repositories (such as PROSPERO), and contact made with key authors; as well as internet site searches for policies and reports. An experienced information specialist’s help was sought in reviewing the search strategy tool which included students as the population, Deaf awareness as the concept, and health professional education at the context. Search terms used included: Deaf OR hard of hearing or DHH or sensory loss; combining “deaf aware*” OR “deaf culture*”) AND (“learn*” OR “educat*” OR “train*” OR “course*” OR “program*” OR “teach*”. The databases included were CINAHL, Medline, ASSIA and Proquest Central, as well as Cochrane registers, with searches conducted between August and September 2022; and again in April 2023 (an example of the search strategy for one database is provided as an additional file). Different techniques and terms were used to expand and narrow searches, including tools such as medical subject headings (MESH), Boolean operators and Truncation. Single and combined search terms included key subject areas on: Deaf, hard of hearing, and Deaf awareness. Education related search terms included learning, education, training, course, program and teaching. Limitations were set to include papers in the English Language and research since 2000. In addition, key journals, professional organisation websites and reference lists of key studies were searched to identify further relevant documents. The final search strategy and terms were agreed and verified by a health librarian.
Inclusion criteria were: published research articles specific to: a) a focus on Deaf awareness, training on Deaf awareness/Deaf culture and b) were published in the English Language between 2000-2023. Exclusion criteria were: papers published before 2000, not in English language, papers without a focus on Deaf awareness, training/courses/understanding Deaf and hard of hearing patient experience for health professional students.
Study selection
The initial search produced a total of 10,159 from database searches and 39 from registers. Once duplicates were removed (n= 5804), a further 4049 records were excluded that did not meet the inclusion criteria, 345 publications remained, and titles and abstracts were screened. All 345 records were screened by two separate reviewers independently using Rayyan software [31] and annotated spreadsheets of retrieved papers. We began by excluding sources that did not describe empirical studies of Deaf awareness courses for health professional students, such as opinion articles, newspaper reports, and papers without a Deaf awareness focus. Inter-rater discrepancies were resolved by discussion. 26 records were then removed in line with the eligibility criteria, and the remaining 15 publications are included in this review (see Figure 1 PRISMA diagram).
Charting the data
A data-charting form was developed by one reviewer, and then updated iteratively through discussion with a second reviewer. The 15 included sources were charted initially to examine authors, year of publication and country of origin, study design, sample population, study aim and main findings, which was piloted and found to be effective. Through this process sources were all identified as primary research studies. Papers related to the following health professional student disciplines: Pharmacy (n=2), Nursing (n=2), Audiology (n=2), Inter-professional (n=1), and Medicine (n=8).
Collating, summarising and reporting results
In the final scoping review, six individual countries were represented (Figure 2). Most publications came out of the USA, which may be due to greater funding or interest in this area of research compared to other nations. Due to the heterogeneity of the range of study contexts, a narrative synthesis was a reasonable way to approach the reporting of retrieved studies which included: four pre and post intervention surveys; eight cross-sectional studies; two comparative studies and one evaluation of experiential role play.
After summarising the information from sources, then studies were sorted into categories regarding Deaf and hard of hearing awareness courses for specific health professional education program by discipline, as follows: i) pharmacy students; ii) nursing students; iii) audiology students; iv) inter-professional students and v) medical students. In addition, main findings of the sources are presented in Table 1. Context from the grey literature is included in this paper’s introduction as this clinical wisdom provides additional information and context.
Results
Identification of studies
The 15 papers included in this scoping review geographically were carried out in the USA (n=8), Canada (n=2), the UK including Ireland (n=3), with one study each from Germany and Puerto Rico. All studies’ samples were university students undertaking undergraduate study, and they are reported by health education professional discipline below (see Table 1).
Pharmacy students
Two of the studies involved undergraduate pharmacy students [32,33] both conducted in USA. The first involved students embarking on a co-curricular course consisting of four 90-minute including Deaf and hard of hearing cultural competence and sign language words and phrases [32], with students who completed the course reporting significantly improved knowledge and feelings of confidence in relation to communicating with people who are Deaf and hard of hearing [32]. Initially the six hour course had a cost of $50, reduced to $12 for each student by university sponsorship. As an external agency provided and co-ordinated the courses, it is noted that the workload was not additional for course staff. The second study retrieved about pharmacy students involved a different learning style with members from a nearby centre for Deaf and hard of hearing people and participation in a role-reversal exercise as students ‘became’ Deaf and hard of hearing patients [33].
Members of the Deaf and hard of hearing community wrote scenarios for student learning, and prior to the exercise students had basic lessons in ASL and reading materials about Deaf and hard of hearing culture. Students then experienced the patient perspective and different parts of a mock hospital experience as they communicated symptoms without using their voices and moved through processes of asking for interpreters, consenting to treatment, and giving symptom information. The session included debriefing, reflection on the experience and students learned the frustrating experiences in healthcare that Deaf and hard of hearing people experience [33]. 65 pharmacy students agreed the experience would positively impact their attitudes and future behaviour towards Deaf and hard of hearing patients [33]. As part of course requirements students wrote two-page reflections on the experience. In terms of feasibility the authors [33] note the nearness of the centre for Deaf and hard of hearing people being very near to the education facility, and interest from nursing educators who observed the intervention, which is often undertaken by medical students too. Both studies [32,33] have involved a small number of students with requirement for heavy resource, for example 12 faculty members were involved [33].
Nursing students
Two US studies focused on nursing students [34,35], the first of these focused on discovering students’ existing knowledge about Deaf and hard of hearing culture and awareness with multiple choice then true/false statements [34]. Out of 131 respondents [34], 18 had taken a entry level sign language course previously, and 17% (n=22) answered more than half the questions correctly indicating low levels of Deaf and hard of hearing awareness and Deaf and hard of hearing cultural competence. A second study involving US nursing students interacting directly with Deaf and hard of hearing people acting as standardised patients and a Deaf and hard of hearing awareness lecture prior to the activity [35]. On starting an initial history taking exercise students were unaware patients would be Deaf and hard of hearing, mirroring real-life practice situations. Initially several students were reported to have turned away, preventing lip-reading, or left the room without saying they were going in search of interpreters. Students then received further input about communicating with Deaf and hard of hearing communities and several positive changes were noted in the second exercise. This study [35] is a good example of how local Deaf and hard of hearing communities can be directly involved in providing students with a meaningful learning experience, which Deaf and hard of hearing participants reported benefits in contributing to nurse education and improving care for others.
Inter-professional students
One paper discussed Deaf awareness introduced across ten health professional disciplines [36]. As all health professionals will meet Deaf and hard of hearing patients frequently, they should know how to communicate with them [36]. The focus of this study was on students learning from members of the Deaf community and was enacted as a patient and community voices or patient involvement initiative [36]. Community members were involved from the start with a steering group, planning of learning objectives, and then as mentors, who focused their stories to students on health-related experiences. The study indicates a full work-shop outline, including an ‘unfair hearing test’ where students experience what it would sound like to have a hearing difficulty [36]. Students increased their knowledge of the following: the barriers experienced by DHH people in accessing services and good care, and the negative consequences that may result; the use of translators/ interpreters, and assistive listening equipment; and American Sign Language and Deaf culture. Few details are provided about the inter-professional nature of the workshop except that the authors suggest the workshop is dependent on the quality of the interactions and can only accommodate small groups of students. In its current format it cannot provide profession-specific communication strategies, but it could be adapted for a single profession to provide more specific tools and techniques [36].
Medical students
The healthcare professional group most frequently studied in relation to the impact of Deaf and hard of hearing awareness programs were medical students with three studies conducted in the UK [37,38,39,40], four in the USA [41,42,43], one in Canada [44], one in Puerto Rico [45]and one in Germany [46]. Medical schools in the UK (n=38) were asked to complete a survey as to whether they included Deaf and hard of hearing awareness training in their curriculum, with 23 respondents [37]. 7/23 medical schools did not provide any Deaf and hard of hearing awareness training, and of the 16 medical schools who provided training, 8 made it compulsory. 6 provided a formal qualification in Sign Language or Deaf and hard of hearing awareness. Time spent training varied from 1-2 hours to six weeks, and 13/16 involved a Deaf and hard of hearing tutor in teaching delivery [37].
A significant difference was noted on survey questionnaires to measure attitudes to and knowledge of Deaf and hard of hearing-ness in those taking an optional Deaf and hard of hearing awareness course (n=29) and control group, who could perceive patient mannerisms as rude [38]. Students reported that without encountering Deaf and hard of hearing people it may be difficult to understand the issues they face.
In response to positive evaluations from medical students on a Sensory awareness Day, a special study module was developed including a short Sign language course taught by a Deaf and hard of hearing tutor and self-directed material to gain insight into Deaf and hard of hearing awareness, the course included a written report, British Sign Language (BSL) tutorials and classes, a BSL objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) assessed by a certified BSL examiner, all totalling 72 hours of study activity [39]. To date 54 medical students have undertaken the course, and out of 52 completed evaluations 98% students found the sign language manageable and the content appropriate for clinical practice, although 19% would have liked more medical vocabulary [39].
The four US studies sought to discover if medical students who attend Deaf and hard of hearing culture training demonstrated greater knowledge of Deaf and hard of hearing culture and Deaf and hard of hearing patients than medical students not given a Deaf and hard of hearing awareness educational opportunity, [40,41,42,43]. Students were asked to list up to five problems they thought a Deaf and hard of hearing person might experience on hospitalisation, with students who had attended Deaf and hard of hearing cultural training showing awareness about understanding terms and medical language as the number one difficulty, but also acknowledging awareness about maltreatment and mistreatment being a possibility, which others did not show awareness about [41]. Another university applied Deaf and hard of hearing culture to an anatomy session whilst medical students studied the ear and hearing [42]. Deaf and hard of hearing panellists attended this 90 minute session and discussed their healthcare experiences, additionally a further 90 minute session on Deaf and hard of hearing culture was provided, with students given pre and post session questions. Students gave positive feedback about the cultural competencies relating directly to the anatomy and neuroscience session, with students recognising their previous low knowledge levels in relation to Deaf and hard of hearing communities.
Similarly, osteopathic medical students participated in a pre-test, workshop, then post-test study two weeks later with significantly improved scores at post test following attendance at a four-hour workshop [43]. Students reported the contact with Deaf and hard of hearing people as part of the workshop to be the most beneficial, and also commended the opportunities to practice their newly learned skills.
Medical students in Germany were invited to attend an online workshop held on three consecutive occasions, and to engage in pre and post evaluations (n=95) [46]. 65.3% of students had not been in contact with a Deaf and hard of hearing or HOH person before. Students reported feeling substantially more confident working with Deaf and hard of hearing people after engaging in the online Deaf and hard of hearing awareness program. Students reported finding the Deaf and hard of hearing awareness workshop particularly helpful from a personal and from a professional point of view. The workshop was elective and the only Deaf and hard of hearing awareness intervention in retrieved evidence that was held online retrieved during this scoping review.
Medical students (n=158) were asked about their knowledge of Deaf and hard of hearing culture and community in Puerto Rico, without any intervention [45], 21% of respondents had attended a sign language class, and generally students in more senior years reported more likelihood of working with a Deaf and hard of hearing patient and showed an increased understanding of Deaf and hard of hearing culture in comparison to junior students.
Overall papers retrieved in this scoping review suggest that health professional students who have the opportunity to engage in Deaf and hard of hearing awareness education courses during their undergraduate training find it beneficial.
Discussion
Overall, there is significant variability in how Deaf awareness training and programs exist for health professional students as well as how the learning may be assessed and examined. Generally, health professional training does not include significant content about learning how to communicate with Deaf and hard of hearing people and few opportunities to develop Deaf and hard of hearing cultural competencies.
The lack of content regarding the care of Deaf and hard of hearing people during education of all health professional students may be one of the explanations for the difficulty of interaction between professionals and the dissatisfaction Deaf and hard of hearing users of health services experience [47,48]. Evidence retrieved usually involved small samples, and providers were often supported by external agencies in terms of delivery.
Several of the retrieved studies reported on one-off interventions with small participant numbers, some of which required heavy resources from either education faculties, local Deaf and hard of hearing centres or both [32,33,34]. Whilst direct involvement from Deaf and hard of hearing communities is admirable and probably the best experience for student learning, it may not be feasible for health professional programs to aspire to such learning opportunities due to high numbers of students. Providing the opportunities to a select few is not in the spirit of equity, and Deaf awareness knowledge and cultural competence surely need to be known to all undertaking a health professional program. Education providers with large student populations simply cannot over-burden local Deaf and hard of hearing communities to come on-site and provide teaching and practice opportunities, and the logistics of organising this for large cohorts are challenging, with providers aware of competing topics, and limited program time. One solution would be for the development of Deaf awareness eLearning packages that have been Deaf-led, and include the development of knowledge about types of Deafness, best ways to communicate, what to avoid, as well as promoting positivity around Deaf and hard of hearing population, so that Deaf culture is not only learned about, but embraced.
A solution by some providers in terms of navigating competing timetable demands is to provide Deaf and hard of hearing awareness as optional [38] resulting in probably the most motivated students attending, and again resulting in the student majority not having the opportunity for Deaf and hard of hearing awareness skill and knowledge development. Yet health professional comfort levels at communicating with Deaf and hard of hearing patients increase when they have more contact with Deaf and hard of hearing patients [49].
As with most skills workshops, and several of the studies in this review included a student opportunity to learn basic signed language, it is acknowledged that unless learners have the opportunity to regularly practice a skill it may soon be lost. [49], so a thorough approach with regularity and informal practice time would be essential for success.
A scarcity of evidence was found from allied health professional programs regarding Deaf and hard of hearing awareness content. This is notable in terms of audiology student programs, although anecdotally many claim to include a session on the topic. Regarding qualified audiologists, two studies examined audiologists’ current cultural competency [50] and the need for audiologists to have clinically relevant sign language [51]. More than half of respondents reported their clinical signing abilities as needing to be improved with reported proficiencies and confidence being quite low [51], and for audiologists who had completed further study on sign language, only a third reported that their extra training had included clinically relevant signs that assisted them with their role [52]. Whilst many might think Deaf and hard of hearing people attend audiologists regularly, many who use sign language do not necessarily do so, but the need for audiologists to increase their knowledge of Deaf awareness and proficiency in sign language starting during their professional training is clear, as well as their knowledge regarding how to work with sign language interpreters [50], which applies to all healthcare professionals. Similarly, others who work with patient groups, such as genetic counselling graduates [52], with over a quarter reporting no Deaf and hard of hearing awareness training and 51% reported limited training of just 1-2 hours during their initial training programs.
There may be certain professional groups who are viewed as more likely to encounter contact directly with a Deaf and hard of hearing person. For example in a study of emergency medical practitioners [53], out of 148 respondents, 109 reported having responded to an emergency call from a Deaf and hard of hearing person. In the same study, participants who attended training said it expanded their knowledge of Deaf and hard of hearing culture; and at 3 months all respondents reported the training to still be helpful and clinically relevant.
Any facilitators of Deaf awareness programs need to ensure accuracy in terms of context and relevant country/regional Sign language. Assumptions are often made, for example a study about Deaf awareness training for support staff with people with intellectual disabilities [54] talked about using signs but people are not always aware that sign for communication support differ considerably a recognised Signed language. For example, Makaton is not a recognised language but is a communication tool [55].
Health professional students themselves have noted that workshops similar to Deaf awareness would help considerably in increasing their knowledge and skills of how best to communication and work with under-served populations [45]. Despite moves to progress accessible standards in health services, we continue to know that populations continue to have poor experiences in healthcare which mostly relate to the limited knowledge and preparedness of those working in such professions.
Strengths and limitations of this study
Using the guidelines of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), this study provides a detailed view of the evidence of Deaf and hard of hearing awareness content that feature in health professional student programs
Literature from four electronic databases and registers were screened to comprehensively source and describe the literature.
Only published peer-reviewed research articles in English were included
Despite a systematic approach, there is a risk that further evidence may have been overlooked.
Conclusion
This scoping review outlined the available evidence regarding health professional programs that include Deaf awareness content aimed to increase students’ knowledge skills and Deaf cultural competencies as they move forwards in their careers. With the negative experiences in healthcare often reported by Deaf and hard of hearing communities, targeting Deaf awareness training during professional educational is ideally timed. A lack of rigorous research in this field is currently documented, although there is emerging evidence of benefits and increased knowledge for student populations. All development of Deaf awareness education needs full involvement from Deaf and hard of hearing communities to ensure relevance and success. Programme regulators and providers have an important role here in reviewing program content to ensure disadvantaged communities do not remain under-served. There is potential to ensure that students emerge from health professional education with good knowledge about how to work with Deaf and hard of hearing patients. Future research is needed to discover the most logistical way to engage health professional students to communicate effectively with Deaf and hard of hearing people.
Data Availability
Data is provided in the figures, table and additional files.
Data statement
No data are available
Author statement
The research question and study design was developed by the steering group. JT and RM reviewed all records and analysed the data, interpreted the data and results. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of interests statement
None declared.
Funding
This work was supported by the xxxxx, grant number 101010662\737073
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the project steering group, particularly Deaf and hard of hearing communities in Wales for their support and interest with the project.
