Patient-Provider Language Concordance and Colorectal Cancer Screening

General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, 2nd Floor, GIM, Boston, MA, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 02/2011; 26(2):142-7. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-010-1512-9
Source: PubMed


Patient-provider language barriers may play a role in health-care disparities, including obtaining colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Professional interpreters and language-concordant providers may mitigate these disparities. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MAIN MEASURES: We performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals age 50 years and older who were categorized as English-Concordant (spoke English at home, n = 21,594); Other Language-Concordant (did not speak English at home but someone at their provider's office spoke their language, n = 1,463); or Other Language-Discordant (did not speak English at home and no one at their provider's spoke their language, n = 240). Multivariate logistic regression assessed the association of language concordance with colorectal cancer screening.
Compared to English speakers, non-English speakers had lower use of colorectal cancer screening (30.7% vs 50.8%; OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.76). Compared to the English-Concordant group, the Language-Discordant group had similar screening (adjusted OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.21), while the Language-Concordant group had lower screening (adjusted OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.71).
Rates of CRC screening are lower in individuals who do not speak English at home compared to those who do. However, the Language-Discordant cohort had similar rates to those with English concordance, while the Language-Concordant cohort had lower rates of CRC screening. This may be due to unmeasured differences among the cohorts in patient, provider, and health care system characteristics. These results suggest that providers should especially promote the importance of CRC screening to non-English speaking patients, but that language barriers do not fully account for CRC screening rate disparities in these populations.

Download full-text


Available from: Nathalie Mcintosh, Nov 11, 2014
1 Follower
24 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:: Our objectives were to: (1) compare colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) among US born citizens (USBs), naturalized citizens (NACs), and noncitizens (NOCs) and (2) evaluate clinical factors and potential barriers associated with CRCS in these populations. METHODS:: Screening-eligible patients were identified from the 2007 California Health Interview Survey. Up-to-date CRCS was defined as a fecal occult blood test within 1 year, a sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or a colonoscopy within 10 years. Using logistic regression, we determined the effects of immigrant status on CRCS. Stratified analyses based on location of residence, health insurance status, and English proficiency were conducted. RESULTS:: A total of 30,434 average-risk adults aged 50 years or older completed the survey. Only 67% of USBs, 61% of NACs, and 46% of NOCs underwent CRCS. Advanced age, male sex, high-income earners, nonsmokers, and those who were married or visited their physicians frequently were more likely to receive CRCS (all P<0.05). Compared with USBs, both NACs and NOCs showed decreased odds of CRCS (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.06 and odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.88, respectively; P=0.011). Stratified analyses revealed that the associations between immigrants and decreased CRCS were more prominent for those who lived in rural areas, lacked insurance, or were not English proficient. CONCLUSIONS:: CRCS remains suboptimal, especially in new US immigrants. Improving health care access and mitigating language barriers may minimize this disparity.
    American journal of clinical oncology 05/2012; 36(4). DOI:10.1097/COC.0b013e318248da66 · 3.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Area social deprivation is associated with unfavorable health outcomes of residents across the full clinical course of cancer from the stage at diagnosis through survival. We sought to determine whether area social factors are associated with the area health care supply. Patients and methods: We studied the area supply of health services required for the provision of guideline-recommended care for patients with breast cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) in each of the following three distinct clinical domains: screening, treatment, and post-treatment surveillance. We characterized area social factors in 3,096 urban zip code tabulation areas by using Census Bureau data and the health care supply in the corresponding 465 hospital service areas by using American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, and US Food and Drug Administration data. In two-level hierarchical models, we assessed associations between social factors and the supply of health services across areas. Results: We found no clear associations between area social factors and the supply of health services essential to the provision of guideline recommended breast cancer and CRC care in urban areas. The measures of health service included the supply of physicians who facilitate screening, treatment, and post-treatment care and the supply of facilities required for the same services. Conclusion: Because we found that the supply of types of health care required for the provision of guideline-recommended cancer care for patients with breast cancer and CRC did not vary with markers of area socioeconomic disadvantage, it is possible that previously reported unfavorable breast cancer and CRC outcomes among individuals living in impoverished areas may have occurred despite an apparent adequate area health care supply.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 08/2012; 30(26):3250-7. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2011.40.4228 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of our study was to evaluate barriers in communication and disease understanding among office staff and interpreters when communicating with Spanish-speaking women with pelvic floor disorders. We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate barriers to communication with Spanish-speaking women with pelvic floor disorders among office staff and interpreters. Sixteen office staff and interpreters were interviewed; interview questions focused on experiences with Spanish-speaking patients with pelvic floor disorders in the clinic setting. Interview transcripts were analyzed qualitatively using grounded theory methodology. Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed several barriers in communication as identified by office staff and interpreters. Three major classes were predominant: patient, interpreter, and system-related barriers. Patient-related barriers included a lack of understanding of anatomy and medical terminology and inhibited discussions due to embarrassment. Provider-related barriers included poor interpreter knowledge of pelvic floor vocabulary and the use of office staff without interpreting credentials. System-related barriers included poor access to information. From these preliminary themes, an emergent concept was revealed: it is highly likely that Spanish-speaking women with pelvic floor disorders have poor understanding of their condition owing to multiple obstacles in communication. There are many levels of barriers to communications with Latin women treated for pelvic floor disorders, arising from the patient, interpreter, and the system itself. These barriers contribute to a low level of understanding of their diagnosis, treatment options, and administered therapies.
    Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery 04/2013; 19(3):157-64. DOI:10.1097/SPV.0b013e318288ac1c · 1.09 Impact Factor
Show more