User login
Study Overview
Objective. To compare rates of asthma action plan use in limited English proficiency (LEP) caregivers compared with English proficient (EP) caregivers.
Design. Cross-sectional survey.
Participants and setting. A convenience sample of 107 Latino caregivers of children with asthma at an urban academic emergency department (ED). Surveys in the preferred language of the patient (English or Spanish, with the translated version previously validated) were distributed at the time of the ED visit. Interpreters were utilized when requested.
Main outcome measure. Caregiver use of an asthma action plan.
Main results. 51 LEP caregivers and 56 EP caregivers completed the survey. Mothers completed the surveys 87% of the time and the average age of patients was 4 years. Among the EP caregivers, 64% reported using an asthma action plan, while only 39% of the LEP caregivers reported using one. The difference was statistally significant (P = 0.01). Through both correlations and regressions, English proficiency was the only variable (others included health insurance status and level of caregiver education) that showed a significant effect on asthma action plan use.
Conclusions. Children whose caregiver had LEP were significantly less likely to have and use an asthma action plan. Asthma education in the language of choice of the patient may help improve asthma care.
Commentary
With 20% of US households now speaking a language other than English at home [1], language barriers between providers and patients present multiple challenges to health services delivery and can significantly contribute to immigrant health disparities. Despite US laws and multiple federal agency policies requiring the use of interpreters during health care encounters, organizations continue to fall short of providing interpreter services and often lack adequate or equivalent materials for patient education. Too often, providers overestimate their language skills [2,3], use colleagues as ad hoc interpreters out of convenience [4], or rely on family members for interpretation [4]—a practice that is universally discouraged.
Recent research does suggest that the timing of interpreter use is critical. In planned encounters such as primary care visits, interpreters can and should be scheduled for visits when a language-concordant provider is not available. During hospitalizations, including ED visits, interpreters are most effective when used on admission, during patient teaching, and upon discharge, and the timing of these visits has been shown to affect length of stay and readmission rates [5,6].
This study magnifies the consequences of failing to provide language-concordant services to patients and their caregivers. It also helps to identify one of the sources of pediatric asthma health disparities in Latino populations. The emphasis on the role of the caregiver in action plan utilization is a unique aspect of this study and it is one of the first to examine the issue in this way. It highlights the importance of caregivers in health system transitions and illustrates how a language barrier can potentially impact transitions.
The authors’ explicit use of a power analysis to calculate their sample size is a strength of the study. Furthermore, the authors differentiated their respondents by country of origin, something that rarely occurs in studies of Latinos [7], and allows the reader to differentiate the impact of the intervention at a micro level within this population. The presentation of Spanish language quotes with their translations within the manuscript provides transparency for bilingual readers to verify the accuracy of the authors’ translation.
There are, however, a number of methodological issues that should be noted. The authors acknowledge that they did not account for asthma severity in the survey nor control for it in the analysis, did not assess health literacy, and did not differentiate their results based on country of origin. The latter point is important because the immigration experience and demographic profiles of Latinos differs significantly by country of origin and could factor in to action plan use. The translation process used for survey instrument translation also did not illustrate how it accounted for the well-established linguistic variation that occurs in the Spanish language. Additionally, US census data shows that the main countries of origin of Latinos in the service area of the study are Puerto Rico, Ecuador, and Mexico [1]. The survey itself had Ecuador as a write in and Dominican as a response option. The combination presented in the survey reflects the Latino demographic composition in the nearest large urban area. Thus, when collecting country of origin data on immigrant patients, country choices should reflect local demographics and not national trends for maximum precision.
Another concern is that Spanish language literacy was not assessed. Many Latino immigrants may have limited reading ability in Spanish. For Mexican immigrants in particular, Spanish may be a second language after their indigenous language. This is also true for some South American Latino immigrants from the Andean region. Many Latino immigrants come to the United States with less than an 8th grade education and likely come from educational systems of poor quality, which subsequently affects their Spanish language reading and writing skills [8]. Assessing education level based on US equivalents is not an accurate way to gauge literacy. Thus, assessing reading literacy in Spanish before surveying patients would have been a useful step that could have further refined the results. These factors will have implications for action plan utilization and implementation for any chronic disease.
Providers often think that language barriers are an obvious factor in health disparities and service delivery, but few studies have actually captured or quantified the effects of language barriers on health outcomes. Most studies only identify language barriers as an access issue. This study provides a good illustration of the impact of a language barrier on a known and effective intervention for pediatric asthma management. Practitioners can take the consequences illustrated in this study and easily extrapolate the contribution to health disparities on a broader scale.
Applications for Clinical Practice
Practitioners caring for patients in EDs where the patient or caregiver has a language barrier should make every effort to use appropriate interpreter services when patient teaching occurs. Assessing not only for health literacy but reading ability in the LEP patient or caregiver is also important, since it will affect dyad’s ability to implement self-care measures recommended in patient teaching sessions or action plan implementation. Asking the patient what their country of origin is, regardless of their legal status, will help practitioners refine patient teaching and the language they (and the interpreter when appropriate) use to illustrate what needs to be done to manage their condition.
—Allison Squires, PhD, RN
1. Ryan C. Language use in the United States : 2011. Migration Policy Institute: Washington, DC; 2013.
2. Diamond LC, Luft HS, Chung S, Jacobs EA. “Does this doctor speak my language?” Improving the characterization of physician non-English language skills. Health Serv Res 2012;47(1 Pt 2):556–69.
3. Jacobs EA. Patient centeredness in medical encounters requiring an interpreter. Am J Med 2000;109:515.
4. Hsieh E. Understanding medical interpreters: reconceptualizing bilingual health communication. Health Commun 2006;20:177–86.
5. Karliner LS, Kim SE, Meltzer DO, Auerbach AD. Influence of language barriers on outcomes of hospital care for general medicine inpatients. J Hosp Med 2010;5:276–82.
6. Lindholm M, Hargraves JL, Ferguson WJ, Reed G. Professional language interpretation and inpatient length of stay and readmission rates. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27:1294–9.
7. Gerchow L, Tagliaferro B, Squires A, et al. Latina food patterns in the United States: a qualitative metasynthesis. Nurs Res 2014;63:182–93.
8. Sudore RL, Landefeld CS, Pérez-Stable EJ, et al. Unraveling the relationship between literacy, language proficiency, and patient-physician communication. Patient Educ Couns 2009;75:398–402.
Study Overview
Objective. To compare rates of asthma action plan use in limited English proficiency (LEP) caregivers compared with English proficient (EP) caregivers.
Design. Cross-sectional survey.
Participants and setting. A convenience sample of 107 Latino caregivers of children with asthma at an urban academic emergency department (ED). Surveys in the preferred language of the patient (English or Spanish, with the translated version previously validated) were distributed at the time of the ED visit. Interpreters were utilized when requested.
Main outcome measure. Caregiver use of an asthma action plan.
Main results. 51 LEP caregivers and 56 EP caregivers completed the survey. Mothers completed the surveys 87% of the time and the average age of patients was 4 years. Among the EP caregivers, 64% reported using an asthma action plan, while only 39% of the LEP caregivers reported using one. The difference was statistally significant (P = 0.01). Through both correlations and regressions, English proficiency was the only variable (others included health insurance status and level of caregiver education) that showed a significant effect on asthma action plan use.
Conclusions. Children whose caregiver had LEP were significantly less likely to have and use an asthma action plan. Asthma education in the language of choice of the patient may help improve asthma care.
Commentary
With 20% of US households now speaking a language other than English at home [1], language barriers between providers and patients present multiple challenges to health services delivery and can significantly contribute to immigrant health disparities. Despite US laws and multiple federal agency policies requiring the use of interpreters during health care encounters, organizations continue to fall short of providing interpreter services and often lack adequate or equivalent materials for patient education. Too often, providers overestimate their language skills [2,3], use colleagues as ad hoc interpreters out of convenience [4], or rely on family members for interpretation [4]—a practice that is universally discouraged.
Recent research does suggest that the timing of interpreter use is critical. In planned encounters such as primary care visits, interpreters can and should be scheduled for visits when a language-concordant provider is not available. During hospitalizations, including ED visits, interpreters are most effective when used on admission, during patient teaching, and upon discharge, and the timing of these visits has been shown to affect length of stay and readmission rates [5,6].
This study magnifies the consequences of failing to provide language-concordant services to patients and their caregivers. It also helps to identify one of the sources of pediatric asthma health disparities in Latino populations. The emphasis on the role of the caregiver in action plan utilization is a unique aspect of this study and it is one of the first to examine the issue in this way. It highlights the importance of caregivers in health system transitions and illustrates how a language barrier can potentially impact transitions.
The authors’ explicit use of a power analysis to calculate their sample size is a strength of the study. Furthermore, the authors differentiated their respondents by country of origin, something that rarely occurs in studies of Latinos [7], and allows the reader to differentiate the impact of the intervention at a micro level within this population. The presentation of Spanish language quotes with their translations within the manuscript provides transparency for bilingual readers to verify the accuracy of the authors’ translation.
There are, however, a number of methodological issues that should be noted. The authors acknowledge that they did not account for asthma severity in the survey nor control for it in the analysis, did not assess health literacy, and did not differentiate their results based on country of origin. The latter point is important because the immigration experience and demographic profiles of Latinos differs significantly by country of origin and could factor in to action plan use. The translation process used for survey instrument translation also did not illustrate how it accounted for the well-established linguistic variation that occurs in the Spanish language. Additionally, US census data shows that the main countries of origin of Latinos in the service area of the study are Puerto Rico, Ecuador, and Mexico [1]. The survey itself had Ecuador as a write in and Dominican as a response option. The combination presented in the survey reflects the Latino demographic composition in the nearest large urban area. Thus, when collecting country of origin data on immigrant patients, country choices should reflect local demographics and not national trends for maximum precision.
Another concern is that Spanish language literacy was not assessed. Many Latino immigrants may have limited reading ability in Spanish. For Mexican immigrants in particular, Spanish may be a second language after their indigenous language. This is also true for some South American Latino immigrants from the Andean region. Many Latino immigrants come to the United States with less than an 8th grade education and likely come from educational systems of poor quality, which subsequently affects their Spanish language reading and writing skills [8]. Assessing education level based on US equivalents is not an accurate way to gauge literacy. Thus, assessing reading literacy in Spanish before surveying patients would have been a useful step that could have further refined the results. These factors will have implications for action plan utilization and implementation for any chronic disease.
Providers often think that language barriers are an obvious factor in health disparities and service delivery, but few studies have actually captured or quantified the effects of language barriers on health outcomes. Most studies only identify language barriers as an access issue. This study provides a good illustration of the impact of a language barrier on a known and effective intervention for pediatric asthma management. Practitioners can take the consequences illustrated in this study and easily extrapolate the contribution to health disparities on a broader scale.
Applications for Clinical Practice
Practitioners caring for patients in EDs where the patient or caregiver has a language barrier should make every effort to use appropriate interpreter services when patient teaching occurs. Assessing not only for health literacy but reading ability in the LEP patient or caregiver is also important, since it will affect dyad’s ability to implement self-care measures recommended in patient teaching sessions or action plan implementation. Asking the patient what their country of origin is, regardless of their legal status, will help practitioners refine patient teaching and the language they (and the interpreter when appropriate) use to illustrate what needs to be done to manage their condition.
—Allison Squires, PhD, RN
Study Overview
Objective. To compare rates of asthma action plan use in limited English proficiency (LEP) caregivers compared with English proficient (EP) caregivers.
Design. Cross-sectional survey.
Participants and setting. A convenience sample of 107 Latino caregivers of children with asthma at an urban academic emergency department (ED). Surveys in the preferred language of the patient (English or Spanish, with the translated version previously validated) were distributed at the time of the ED visit. Interpreters were utilized when requested.
Main outcome measure. Caregiver use of an asthma action plan.
Main results. 51 LEP caregivers and 56 EP caregivers completed the survey. Mothers completed the surveys 87% of the time and the average age of patients was 4 years. Among the EP caregivers, 64% reported using an asthma action plan, while only 39% of the LEP caregivers reported using one. The difference was statistally significant (P = 0.01). Through both correlations and regressions, English proficiency was the only variable (others included health insurance status and level of caregiver education) that showed a significant effect on asthma action plan use.
Conclusions. Children whose caregiver had LEP were significantly less likely to have and use an asthma action plan. Asthma education in the language of choice of the patient may help improve asthma care.
Commentary
With 20% of US households now speaking a language other than English at home [1], language barriers between providers and patients present multiple challenges to health services delivery and can significantly contribute to immigrant health disparities. Despite US laws and multiple federal agency policies requiring the use of interpreters during health care encounters, organizations continue to fall short of providing interpreter services and often lack adequate or equivalent materials for patient education. Too often, providers overestimate their language skills [2,3], use colleagues as ad hoc interpreters out of convenience [4], or rely on family members for interpretation [4]—a practice that is universally discouraged.
Recent research does suggest that the timing of interpreter use is critical. In planned encounters such as primary care visits, interpreters can and should be scheduled for visits when a language-concordant provider is not available. During hospitalizations, including ED visits, interpreters are most effective when used on admission, during patient teaching, and upon discharge, and the timing of these visits has been shown to affect length of stay and readmission rates [5,6].
This study magnifies the consequences of failing to provide language-concordant services to patients and their caregivers. It also helps to identify one of the sources of pediatric asthma health disparities in Latino populations. The emphasis on the role of the caregiver in action plan utilization is a unique aspect of this study and it is one of the first to examine the issue in this way. It highlights the importance of caregivers in health system transitions and illustrates how a language barrier can potentially impact transitions.
The authors’ explicit use of a power analysis to calculate their sample size is a strength of the study. Furthermore, the authors differentiated their respondents by country of origin, something that rarely occurs in studies of Latinos [7], and allows the reader to differentiate the impact of the intervention at a micro level within this population. The presentation of Spanish language quotes with their translations within the manuscript provides transparency for bilingual readers to verify the accuracy of the authors’ translation.
There are, however, a number of methodological issues that should be noted. The authors acknowledge that they did not account for asthma severity in the survey nor control for it in the analysis, did not assess health literacy, and did not differentiate their results based on country of origin. The latter point is important because the immigration experience and demographic profiles of Latinos differs significantly by country of origin and could factor in to action plan use. The translation process used for survey instrument translation also did not illustrate how it accounted for the well-established linguistic variation that occurs in the Spanish language. Additionally, US census data shows that the main countries of origin of Latinos in the service area of the study are Puerto Rico, Ecuador, and Mexico [1]. The survey itself had Ecuador as a write in and Dominican as a response option. The combination presented in the survey reflects the Latino demographic composition in the nearest large urban area. Thus, when collecting country of origin data on immigrant patients, country choices should reflect local demographics and not national trends for maximum precision.
Another concern is that Spanish language literacy was not assessed. Many Latino immigrants may have limited reading ability in Spanish. For Mexican immigrants in particular, Spanish may be a second language after their indigenous language. This is also true for some South American Latino immigrants from the Andean region. Many Latino immigrants come to the United States with less than an 8th grade education and likely come from educational systems of poor quality, which subsequently affects their Spanish language reading and writing skills [8]. Assessing education level based on US equivalents is not an accurate way to gauge literacy. Thus, assessing reading literacy in Spanish before surveying patients would have been a useful step that could have further refined the results. These factors will have implications for action plan utilization and implementation for any chronic disease.
Providers often think that language barriers are an obvious factor in health disparities and service delivery, but few studies have actually captured or quantified the effects of language barriers on health outcomes. Most studies only identify language barriers as an access issue. This study provides a good illustration of the impact of a language barrier on a known and effective intervention for pediatric asthma management. Practitioners can take the consequences illustrated in this study and easily extrapolate the contribution to health disparities on a broader scale.
Applications for Clinical Practice
Practitioners caring for patients in EDs where the patient or caregiver has a language barrier should make every effort to use appropriate interpreter services when patient teaching occurs. Assessing not only for health literacy but reading ability in the LEP patient or caregiver is also important, since it will affect dyad’s ability to implement self-care measures recommended in patient teaching sessions or action plan implementation. Asking the patient what their country of origin is, regardless of their legal status, will help practitioners refine patient teaching and the language they (and the interpreter when appropriate) use to illustrate what needs to be done to manage their condition.
—Allison Squires, PhD, RN
1. Ryan C. Language use in the United States : 2011. Migration Policy Institute: Washington, DC; 2013.
2. Diamond LC, Luft HS, Chung S, Jacobs EA. “Does this doctor speak my language?” Improving the characterization of physician non-English language skills. Health Serv Res 2012;47(1 Pt 2):556–69.
3. Jacobs EA. Patient centeredness in medical encounters requiring an interpreter. Am J Med 2000;109:515.
4. Hsieh E. Understanding medical interpreters: reconceptualizing bilingual health communication. Health Commun 2006;20:177–86.
5. Karliner LS, Kim SE, Meltzer DO, Auerbach AD. Influence of language barriers on outcomes of hospital care for general medicine inpatients. J Hosp Med 2010;5:276–82.
6. Lindholm M, Hargraves JL, Ferguson WJ, Reed G. Professional language interpretation and inpatient length of stay and readmission rates. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27:1294–9.
7. Gerchow L, Tagliaferro B, Squires A, et al. Latina food patterns in the United States: a qualitative metasynthesis. Nurs Res 2014;63:182–93.
8. Sudore RL, Landefeld CS, Pérez-Stable EJ, et al. Unraveling the relationship between literacy, language proficiency, and patient-physician communication. Patient Educ Couns 2009;75:398–402.
1. Ryan C. Language use in the United States : 2011. Migration Policy Institute: Washington, DC; 2013.
2. Diamond LC, Luft HS, Chung S, Jacobs EA. “Does this doctor speak my language?” Improving the characterization of physician non-English language skills. Health Serv Res 2012;47(1 Pt 2):556–69.
3. Jacobs EA. Patient centeredness in medical encounters requiring an interpreter. Am J Med 2000;109:515.
4. Hsieh E. Understanding medical interpreters: reconceptualizing bilingual health communication. Health Commun 2006;20:177–86.
5. Karliner LS, Kim SE, Meltzer DO, Auerbach AD. Influence of language barriers on outcomes of hospital care for general medicine inpatients. J Hosp Med 2010;5:276–82.
6. Lindholm M, Hargraves JL, Ferguson WJ, Reed G. Professional language interpretation and inpatient length of stay and readmission rates. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27:1294–9.
7. Gerchow L, Tagliaferro B, Squires A, et al. Latina food patterns in the United States: a qualitative metasynthesis. Nurs Res 2014;63:182–93.
8. Sudore RL, Landefeld CS, Pérez-Stable EJ, et al. Unraveling the relationship between literacy, language proficiency, and patient-physician communication. Patient Educ Couns 2009;75:398–402.