OBJECTIVE: Poor prognosis is difficult to impart, particularly across a cultural divide. This study compared prognostic communication with immigrants (with and without interpreters) versus native-born patients in audio-taped oncology consultations. METHODS: Ten oncologists, 78 patients (31 Australian-born, 47 immigrants) and 115 family members participated. The first two consultations after diagnosis of incurable disease were audiotaped, transcribed and coded. 142 consultations were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Fifty percent of doctor and 59% of patient prognostic speech units were not interpreted or interpreted non-equivalently when an interpreter was present. Immigrant status predicted few prognostic facts, and oncologist characteristics no prognostic facts, disclosed. Oncologists were significantly less likely to convey hope to immigrants (p=0.0004), and more likely to use medical jargon (p=0.009) than with Australian-born patients. Incurable disease status and a limited life span were commonly acknowledged, generally with no timeframe provided. Physical issues were discussed more commonly than emotional aspects. CONCLUSIONS: While culture did not appear to influence doctor speech, interpreters filtered or blocked much prognostic communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Initiatives to empower all patients to attain needed information, optimise communication when an interpreter is present and train cancer health professionals in culturally appropriate care, are urgently required.
OBJECTIVE: Poor prognosis is difficult to impart, particularly across a cultural divide. This study compared prognostic communication with immigrants (with and without interpreters) versus native-born patients in audio-taped oncology consultations. METHODS: Ten oncologists, 78 patients (31 Australian-born, 47 immigrants) and 115 family members participated. The first two consultations after diagnosis of incurable disease were audiotaped, transcribed and coded. 142 consultations were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Fifty percent of doctor and 59% of patient prognostic speech units were not interpreted or interpreted non-equivalently when an interpreter was present. Immigrant status predicted few prognostic facts, and oncologist characteristics no prognostic facts, disclosed. Oncologists were significantly less likely to convey hope to immigrants (p=0.0004), and more likely to use medical jargon (p=0.009) than with Australian-born patients. Incurable disease status and a limited life span were commonly acknowledged, generally with no timeframe provided. Physical issues were discussed more commonly than emotional aspects. CONCLUSIONS: While culture did not appear to influence doctor speech, interpreters filtered or blocked much prognostic communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Initiatives to empower all patients to attain needed information, optimise communication when an interpreter is present and train cancer health professionals in culturally appropriate care, are urgently required.
Authors: Zarnie Lwin; Alexander Broom; Rasha Cosman; Ann Livingstone; Kate Sawkins; Phillip Good; Emma Kirby; Eng-Siew Koh; Elizabeth Hovey Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2014-06-25
Authors: Bharat Narang; So-Young Park; Ingrid O Norrmén-Smith; Michelle Lange; Alex J Ocampo; Francesca M Gany; Lisa C Diamond Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Milagros D Silva; Margaux Genoff; Alexandra Zaballa; Sarah Jewell; Stacy Stabler; Francesca M Gany; Lisa C Diamond Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Remko M van Eenennaam; Willeke J Kruithof; Michael A van Es; Esther T Kruitwagen-van Reenen; Henk-Jan Westeneng; Johanna M A Visser-Meily; Leonard H van den Berg; Anita Beelen Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Tanvir C Turin; Ruksana Rashid; Mahzabin Ferdous; Iffat Naeem; Nahid Rumana; Afsana Rahman; Nafiza Rahman; Mohammad Lasker Journal: Fam Med Community Health Date: 2020-09