Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2016

01.04.2016 | Review Paper

Navigating Language Barriers: A Systematic Review of Patient Navigators’ Impact on Cancer Screening for Limited English Proficient Patients

verfasst von: Margaux C. Genoff, BS, Alexandra Zaballa, BS, Francesca Gany, MD, MS, Javier Gonzalez, BS, Julia Ramirez, BS, Sarah T. Jewell, BS, Lisa C. Diamond, MD MPH

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 4/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the literature on the impact of patient navigators on cancer screening for limited English proficient (LEP) patients.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO via OVID, Web of Science, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Scopus) through 8 May 2015.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Articles in this review had: (1) a study population of LEP patients eligible for breast, cervical or colorectal cancer screenings, (2) a patient navigator intervention to provide services prior to or during cancer screening, (3) a comparison of the patient navigator intervention to either a control group or another intervention, and (4) language-specific outcomes related to the patient navigator intervention.

STUDY APPRAISAL

We assessed the quality of the articles using the Downs and Black Scale.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and evaluated the screening rates for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer in 15 language populations. Fourteen studies resulted in improved screening rates for LEP patients between 7 and 60 %. There was great variability in the patient navigation interventions evaluated. Training received by navigators was not reported in nine of the studies and no studies assessed the language skills of the patient navigators in English or the target language.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by the variability in study designs and limited reporting on patient navigator interventions, which reduces the ability to draw conclusions on the full effect of patient navigators.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found evidence that navigators improved screening rates for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening for LEP patients. Future studies should systematically collect data on the training curricula for navigators and assess their English and non-English language skills in order to identify ways to reduce disparities for LEP patients.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
2007–2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, A. FactFinder, Editor. U.S. Census Bureau 2011, US Census Bureau: American FactFinder.
2.
Ryan, C., Languages in the United States: 2011, in American Community Survey Report. 2013, US Census Bureau.
3.
4.
Fernandez A, et al. LLanguage barriers, physician-patient language concordance, and glycemic control among insured Latinos with diabetes: The Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE). J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(2):170–176.
5.
Flores G, Abreu M, Tomany-Korman SC. Limited English proficiency, primary language at home, and disparities in children's health care: how language barriers are measured matters. Public Health Reports. 2005;120(4):418.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Kandula NR, Lauderdale DS, Baker DW. Differences in self-reported health among Asians, Latinos, and non-Hispanic Whites: the role of language and nativity. Annals of Epidemiology. 2007;17(3):191–198.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Timmins CL. The impact of language barriers on the health care of Latinos in the United States: a review of the literature and guidelines for practice. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health. 2002;47(2):80–96.CrossRef
8.
Derose KP, Baker DW. Limited English proficiency and Latinos’ use of physician services. Medical Care Research and Review. 2000;57(1):76–91.CrossRefPubMed
9.
DuBard CA, Gizlice Z.Language spoken and differences in health status, access to care, and receipt of preventive services among US Hispanics. American Journal of Public Health. 2008;98(11):2021–2028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Fiscella K, et al. Disparities in health care by race, ethnicity, and language among the insured: findings from a national sample. Medical Care. 2002;40(1):52–59.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Jacobs EA, et al. Limited English proficiency and breast and cervical cancer screening in a multiethnic population. American Journal of Public Health. 2005;95(8):1410–1416.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Kandula NR, et al. Low rates of colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening in Asian Americans compared with non-Hispanic whites. Cancer. 2006;107(1):184–192.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Wilson E, et al. Effects of limited English proficiency and physician language on health care comprehension. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(9):800–806.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Freeman HP, Rodriguez RL. History and principles of patient navigation. Cancer. 2011;117(S15):3537–3540.CrossRef
15.
Paskett ED, Harrop J, Wells KJ. Patient navigation: an update on the state of the science. CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2011;61(4):237–249.
16.
17.
Natale-Pereira A, et al. The role of patient navigators in eliminating health disparities. Cancer. 2011;117(S15):3541–3550.CrossRef
18.
Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Schardt C, et al. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2007;7(1):16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Flores G. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review. Medical Care Research and Review. 2005;62(3):255–299.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Jacobs E, et al. The need for more research on language barriers in health care: a proposed research agenda. Milbank Quarterly. 2006;84(1):111–133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Karliner LS, et al. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Services Research. 2007;42(2):727–754.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–384.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Mehin R, Burnett R, Brasher P. Does the new generation of high-flex knee prostheses improve the post-operative range of movement? A meta-analysis. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume. 2010;92(10):1429–1434.CrossRef
25.
Naylor K, Ward J, Polite BN. Interventions to improve care related to colorectal cancer among racial and ethnic minorities: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):1033–1046.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Peek ME, Cargill A, Huang ES. Diabetes health disparities: a systematic review of health care interventions. Medical Care Research and Review. 2007;64(5 suppl):101S–156S.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Bell TS, et al. Interventions to improve uptake of breast screening in inner city Cardiff general practices with ethnic minority lists. Ethn Health. 1999;4(4):277–284.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hoare T, et al. Can the uptake of breast screening by Asian women be increased? A randomized controlled trial of a linkworker intervention. J Public Health Med. 1994;16(2):179–185.PubMed
29.
Percac-Lima S, et al. The impact of patient navigation on decreasing disparities in cancer screening in a large primary care network. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:S406–S407.CrossRef
30.
Percac-Lima S, et al. Decreasing disparities in breast cancer screening in refugee women using culturally tailored patient navigation. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(11):1463–1468.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Percac-Lima S, et al. Patient navigation to improve breast cancer screening in Bosnian refugees and immigrants. J Immigr Minor Health. 2012;14(4):727–730.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Chang JT, et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening among culturally and linguistically diverse low-income patients—Does patient-provider language concordance matter? Gastroenterology. 2011;140(5):S21.
33.
Christie J, et al. A randomized controlled trial using patient navigation to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income minorities. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008;100(3):278–284.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Inadomi JM, et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening varies by race/ethnicity and screening strategy. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(5):S152.
35.
Lasser KE, et al. Colorectal cancer screening among ethnically diverse, low-income patients: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(10):906–912.CrossRefPubMed
36.
37.
Percac-Lima S, et al. A culturally tailored navigator program for colorectal cancer screening in a community health center: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(2):211–217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Perez-Stable EJ, Napoles A, Santoyo-Olsson J. Physician-patient communication and colorectal cancer screening among latino patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:S245.CrossRef
39.
Spiegel A, et al. Effect of a combined educational brochure and patient navigator on colonoscopy completion, polyp detection, bowel preparation, and patient education at an urban public hospital. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(5):A497.
40.
Tu SP, et al. Promoting culturally appropriate colorectal cancer screening through a health educator - A randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2006;107(5):959–966.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Jandorf L, et al. Use of a patient navigator to increase colorectal cancer screening in an urban neighborhood health clinic. J Urban Health. 2005;82(2):216–224.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Lasser K, et al. A randomized controlled trial of patient navigation to promote colorectal cancer screening in community health centers. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:S213.
43.
Percac-Lima S, et al. The longitudinal impact of patient navigation on equity in colorectal cancer screening in a large primary care network. Cancer. 2014;120(13):2025–2031.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Braschi CD, et al. Increasing colonoscopy screening for Latino Americans through a patient navigation model: a randomized clinical trial. J Immigr Minor Health. 2014;16(5):934–940.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Fang CY, et al. A multifaceted intervention to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved Korean women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(6):1298–1302.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Wang X, et al. Evidence-based intervention to reduce access barriers to cervical cancer screening among underserved Chinese American women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010;19(3):463–469.CrossRef
47.
Wasserman MR, et al. Social support among Latina immigrant women: bridge persons as mediators of cervical cancer screening. J Immigr Minor Health. 2006;8(1):67–84.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Nguyen TU, et al. A qualitative assessment of community-based breast health navigation services for Southeast Asian women in Southern California: recommendations for developing a navigator training curriculum. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(1):87–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Moy B, Chabner BA. Patient navigator programs, cancer disparities, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Oncologist. 2011;16(7):926–929.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Gany F, et al. Cancer portal project: a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care among Hispanic patients. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2011;7(1):31–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Fortier, J.P., H. AB, G., and C.G. Jacobs, Final Report: National standards for culturally and linguistically appropriate services in health care. . Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, OPHS, Office of Minority Health., 2001.
52.
GROVE, E., et al. The importance of language assessment for bilingual staff in health services. in Conference Proceedings of Culture, Race and Community Making it work in the New Millennium. 1999.
53.
Gayle Tang MSN, R., et al., The Kaiser Permanente Clinician Cultural and Linguistic Assessment Initiative: research and development in patient-provider language concordance. American journal of public health, 2011. 101(2): p. 205.
54.
Diamond LC, et al. Does This Doctor Speak My Language?” Improving the Characterization of Physician Non‐English Language Skills. Health services research. 2012;47(1pt2):p. 556–p. 569.CrossRef
55.
Gonzalez, J.a.F.G. PROMISE, Program for Medical Interpreting Services and Education in Eighth National Conference on Quality Health Care for Culturally Diverse Populations. 2013. Oakland, California.
56.
Metadaten
Titel
Navigating Language Barriers: A Systematic Review of Patient Navigators’ Impact on Cancer Screening for Limited English Proficient Patients
verfasst von
Margaux C. Genoff, BS
Alexandra Zaballa, BS
Francesca Gany, MD, MS
Javier Gonzalez, BS
Julia Ramirez, BS
Sarah T. Jewell, BS
Lisa C. Diamond, MD MPH
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3572-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2016

Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Original Research

Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium

Review Paper

Provider-to-Provider Communication during Transitions of Care from Outpatient to Acute Care: A Systematic Review

OriginalPaper

Empiricism as Change Agent

Editorial

Reconsidering a Common Practice: In-Hospital Use of PPIs

Erratum

Erratum to: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Alcohol Care Management Delivered in Department of Veterans Affairs Primary Care Clinics Versus Specialty Addiction Treatment

Capsule Commentary

Capsule Commentary on Tosteson et al., Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Schadet Ärger den Gefäßen?

14.05.2024 Arteriosklerose Nachrichten

In einer Studie aus New York wirkte sich Ärger kurzfristig deutlich negativ auf die Endothelfunktion gesunder Probanden aus. Möglicherweise hat dies Einfluss auf die kardiovaskuläre Gesundheit.

Intervallfasten zur Regeneration des Herzmuskels?

14.05.2024 Herzinfarkt Nachrichten

Die Nahrungsaufnahme auf wenige Stunden am Tag zu beschränken, hat möglicherweise einen günstigen Einfluss auf die Prognose nach akutem ST-Hebungsinfarkt. Darauf deutet eine Studie an der Uniklinik in Halle an der Saale hin.

Klimaschutz beginnt bei der Wahl des Inhalators

14.05.2024 Klimawandel Podcast

Auch kleine Entscheidungen im Alltag einer Praxis können einen großen Beitrag zum Klimaschutz leisten. Die neue Leitlinie zur "klimabewussten Verordnung von Inhalativa" geht mit gutem Beispiel voran, denn der Wechsel vom klimaschädlichen Dosieraerosol zum Pulverinhalator spart viele Tonnen CO2. Leitlinienautor PD Dr. Guido Schmiemann erklärt, warum nicht nur die Umwelt, sondern auch Patientinnen und Patienten davon profitieren.

Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin, DEGAM

Typ-2-Diabetes und Depression folgen oft aufeinander

14.05.2024 Typ-2-Diabetes Nachrichten

Menschen mit Typ-2-Diabetes sind überdurchschnittlich gefährdet, in den nächsten Jahren auch noch eine Depression zu entwickeln – und umgekehrt. Besonders ausgeprägt ist die Wechselbeziehung laut GKV-Daten bei jüngeren Erwachsenen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise