Patient-physician Language Concordance and Primary Care Screening Among Spanish-speaking Patients

Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 3.23). 07/2011; 49(7):668-72. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318215d803
Source: PubMed


Language discordance between patient and physician is associated with worse patient self-reported healthcare quality. As Hispanic patients have low rates of cardiovascular and cancer screening, we sought to determine whether patient-physician language concordance was associated with differences in rates of screening.
We performed a retrospective medical record review of 101 Spanish-speaking patients cared for by 6 Spanish-speaking PCPs (language-concordant group) and 205 Spanish-speaking patients cared for by 44 non-Spanish-speaking PCPs (language-discordant group). Patients were included in the study if they were of age 35 to 75 years and had used interpreter services 2001 to 2006 in 2 Boston-based primary care clinics. Our outcomes included screening for hyperlipidemia, diabetes, cervical cancer, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer with age-appropriate and sex-appropriate subgroups. Our main predictor of interest was patient-physician language concordance. In multivariable modeling, we adjusted for age, sex, insurance status, number of primary care visits, and comorbidities. We adjusted for clustering of patients within individual physicians and clinic sites using generalized estimating equations.
Patients in the language-discordant group tended to be female compared with patients in the language-concordant group. There were no significant differences in age, insurance status, number of primary care visits, or Charlson comorbidity index between the 2 groups. Rates of screening for hyperlipidemia, diabetes, cervical cancer, and breast cancer were similar for both language-concordant and language-discordant groups. However, patients in the language-concordant group were less likely to be screened for colorectal cancer compared with the language-discordant group risk ratio 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.99) after multivariable adjustment.
This study finds that Spanish-speaking patients cared for by language-concordant PCPs were not more likely to receive recommended screening for cardiovascular risk factors and cancer. Furthermore, language concordance was associated with lower likelihood colorectal cancer screening. Further research is needed to examine which conditions are optimal to improve cardiovascular and cancer screening for Spanish-speaking patients, particularly for colorectal cancer, which has a low rate of screening.

Download full-text


Available from: Russell S Phillips, Oct 06, 2015
27 Reads
  • Source
    [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
  • Source
    [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 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prior studies have shown racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but have not provided a full national picture of disparities across all major racial/ethnic groups. To provide a more complete, up-to-date picture of racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening and contributing socioeconomic and access barriers. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 2010 were analyzed in 2013. Hispanic/Latino participants were stratified by preferred language (Hispanic-English versus Hispanic-Spanish). Non-Hispanics were categorized as White, Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native. Sequential regression models estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs) and the degree to which SES and access to care explained disparities. Overall, 59.6% reported being up-to-date on CRC screening. Self-reported CRC screening was highest in the White (62.0%) racial/ethnic group; followed by Black (59.0%); Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (54.6%); Hispanic-English (52.5%); American Indian/Alaska Native (49.5%); Asian (47.2%); and Hispanic-Spanish (30.6%) groups. Adjustment for SES and access partially explained disparities between Whites and Hispanic-Spanish (final relative risk [RR]=0.76, 95% CI=0.69, 0.83); Hispanic-English (RR=0.94, 95% CI=0.91, 0.98); and American Indian/Alaska Native (RR=0.91, 95% CI=0.85, 0.97) groups. The RR of screening among Asians was unchanged after adjustment for SES and access (0.78, p<0.001). After full adjustment, screening rates were not significantly different among Whites, Blacks, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. Large racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening persist, including substantial differences between English-speaking versus Spanish-speaking Hispanics. Disparities are only partially explained by SES and access to care. Future studies should explore the low rate of screening among Asians and how it varies by racial/ethnic subgroup and language.
    American journal of preventive medicine 03/2014; 46(3):228-36. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.023 · 4.53 Impact Factor
Show more