Search

Racial-ethnic minorities receive lower quality and intensity of health care compared with whites across a wide range of preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic services and disease entities. These disparities in health care contribute to continuing racial-ethnic disparities in the burden of illness and death. Several national medical organizations and the Institute of Medicine have issued position papers and recommendations for the elimination of health care disparities. However, physicians in practice are often at a loss for how to translate these principles and recommendations into specific interventions in their own clinical practices. This paper serves as a blueprint for translating principles for the elimination of racial-ethnic disparities in health care into specific actions that are relevant for individual clinical practices. We describe what is known about reducing racial-ethnic disparities in clinical practice and make recommendations for how clinician leaders can apply this evidence to transform their own practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we report on the process of translating five mental health outcome measures into Spanish and adapting them to Latino culture. The instruments considered are the World Health Organization-Disability Assessment Scale, the Burden Assessment Scale, the Family Burden Scale, Lehman's Quality of Life Interview and the Continuity of Care in Mental Health Services Interview. A systematic process of translation and adaptation of the instruments was followed with the goal of achieving cultural equivalence between the English and Spanish versions of the instruments in five dimensions: semantic, content, technical, construct, and criterion equivalence. In this paper we present data about the semantic, content, and technical equivalence. Various steps were taken to achieve equivalence in these dimensions, including the use of a bilingual committee, a multi-national bilingual committee, back-translation, and focus groups with mental health patients and their relatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, the mental health needs of populations are measured using large-sample surveys with standardized measures and methods. Such efforts, however, rarely include sufficient number of smaller, culturally defined populations to draw defensible conclusions about their needs. Furthermore, without some adaptation, the standardized methods and measures may yield invalid results in such populations. Using a recently completed psychiatric epidemiology and services study with American Indian populations as a case example, this paper outlines issues facing epidemiologists working in such culturally diverse contexts. The issues discussed include the following: (1) persuading the scientific community and potential sponsors that work with distinct or culturally defined populations is important; (2) framing research questions and activities to meet the needs of communities; (3) defining a population of inference; (4) balancing the needs for comparability and cultural specificity; (5) maximizing scientific validity in light of the challenges in sample acquisition; and (6) developing and implementing data collection methods that uphold scientific standards but are also realistic given the context. The authors draw on their experiences--most recently in the American Indian Service Utilization, Psychiatric Epidemiology, Risk and Protective Factors Project (AI-SUPERPFP)--to illustrate these issues and suggest ways to address each. A goal of this paper is to challenge those invested in conducting culturally valid epidemiologic work in such populations to better articulate the nature of these efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]