Search

Background: Approximately 25 million people in the USA are limited English proficient (LEP). When LEP patients receive care from physicians who are truly language concordant, some evidence show that language disparities are reduced, but others demonstrate worse outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare the impact of language-concordant care for LEP patients with that of other interventions, including professional and ad hoc interpreters.Methods: Data was collected through a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE in October 2017. The literature search strategy had three main components, which were immigrant/minority status, language barrier/proficiency, and healthcare provider/patient relationship. The quality of the articles was appraised using the Downs and Black checklist.Results: The 33 studies were grouped by the outcome measure studied, including quality of care (subdivided into primary care, diabetes, pain management, cancer, and inpatient), satisfaction with care/communication, medical understanding, and mental health. Of the 33, 4 (6.9%) were randomized controlled trials and the remaining 29 (87.9%) were cross-sectional studies. Seventy-six percent (25/33) of the studies demonstrated that at least one of the outcomes assessed was better for patients receiving language-concordant care, while 15% (5/33) of studies demonstrated no difference in outcomes, and 9% (3/33) studies demonstrated worse outcomes in patients receiving language-concordant care.Discussion: The findings of this review indicate that, in the majority of situations, language-concordant care improves outcomes. Although most studies included were of good quality, none provided a standardized assessment of provider language skills. To systematically evaluate the impact of truly language-concordant care on outcomes and draw meaningful conclusions, future studies must include an assessment of clinician language proficiency. Language-concordant care offers an important way for physicians to meet the unique needs of their LEP patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria.Results: Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (n = 21).Conclusions: The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]