Article

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

ABSTRACT 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.

1 Follower
 · 
89 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Individuals with limited English proficiency experience poor patient-clinician communication. Most studies of language concordance have not measured clinician non-English-language proficiency. To evaluate the accuracy of the self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency by clinicians compared with an oral proficiency interview. Primary care providers (PCPs) in California and Massachusetts. PCPs first completed a self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency using a version of the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Scale, followed by the Clinician Cultural and Linguistic Assessment (CCLA), a validated oral proficiency interview. We used nonparametric approaches to analyze CCLA scores at each ILR scale level and the correlation between CCLA and ILR scale scores. Sixteen PCPs in California and 51 in Massachusetts participated (n=67). Participants spoke Spanish (79%), followed by Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Portuguese, and Vietnamese. The respondents self-assessed as having "excellent" proficiency 9% of the time, "very good" proficiency 24% of the time, "good" proficiency 46% of the time, "fair" proficiency 18% of the time, and "poor" proficiency 3% of the time. The average CCLA score was 76/100. There was a positive correlation between self-reported ILR scale and CCLA score (σ=0.49, P<0.001). The variance in CCLA scores was wider in the middle categories than in the low or high ILR categories (P=0.003). Self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency using the ILR correlates to tested language proficiency, particularly on the low and high ends of the scale. Participants who self-assess in the middle of the scale may require additional testing. Further research needs to be conducted to identify the characteristics of PCP whose self-assessments are inaccurate and, thus, require proficiency testing.
    Medical care 02/2014; 52(5). DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000102 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Around the world, members of racial/ethnic minority groups typically experience poorer health than members of racial/ethnic majority groups. The core premise of this article is that thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to race and ethnicity play a critical role in healthcare disparities. Social psychological theories of the origins and consequences of these thoughts, feelings, and behaviors offer critical insights into the processes responsible for these disparities and suggest interventions to address them. We present a multilevel model that explains how societal, intrapersonal, and interpersonal factors can influence ethnic/racial health disparities. We focus our literature review, including our own research, and conceptual analysis at the intrapersonal (the race-related thoughts and feelings of minority patients and non-minority physicians) and interpersonal levels (intergroup processes that affect medical interactions between minority patients and non-minority physicians). At both levels of analysis, we use theories of social categorization, social identity, contemporary forms of racial bias, stereotype activation, stigma, and other social psychological processes to identify and understand potential causes and processes of health and healthcare disparities. In the final section, we identify theory-based interventions that might reduce ethnic/racial disparities in health and healthcare.
    European Review of Social Psychology 12/2013; 24(1):70-122. DOI:10.1080/10463283.2013.840973 · 2.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors examined the relationship between low health literacy (LHL), limited English proficiency (LEP), and meeting current U.S. Preventive Service Task Force colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines for Asians and Whites in California. For 1,478 Asian and 14,410 White respondents 50-75 years of age in the 2007 California Health Interview Survey, the authors examined meeting CRC screening guidelines using multivariable logistic models by LEP and LHL separately and in combination. Analyses were run with the full sample, then separately for Whites and Asians controlling for demographics and insurance. For those with LEP, patient-provider language concordance and CRC screening was examined. Overall, respondents with LEP and LHL were the least likely to meet CRC screening guidelines (36%) followed by LEP-only (45%), LHL-only (51%), and those with neither LHL nor LEP (59%), a hierarchy that remained significant in multivariable models. For Whites, LHL-only was associated with screening, whereas LEP-only and LEP and LHL were significant for Asians. Having a language concordant provider was not significantly associated with CRC screening among those with LEP. Health literacy is associated with CRC screening, but English proficiency is also critical to consider. Asians with both LEP and LHL appear particularly vulnerable to cancer screening disparities.
    Journal of Health Communication 12/2013; 18(sup1):242-255. DOI:10.1080/10810730.2013.825669 · 1.61 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
6 Downloads
Available from
Nov 11, 2014