Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Low-Income Patients – Does Patient-Provider Language Concordance Matter?

Chang, Jennifer; Fernández, Alicia; Thomas, James; Ratanawongsa, Neda; Muñoz, Roxana; Lin, Yunghui; Lau, Chim; Yee, Hal F.; Inadomi, John M.

doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(11)60081-4

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…25,26 RESULTS Figure 1 presents a PRISMA flow diagram demonstrating the systematic review process and the final 15 articles that were included in the narrative review. The 15 studies were subdivided according to type of cancer screening that was evaluated, including breast (combined with other cancers), [27][28][29][30][31] colorectal cancer, [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] and cervical cancer, [45][46][47] represented in Table 1. Fifteen non-English languages were evaluated in these studies.…”

Section: Quality Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 nonEnglish language skills in order to identify ways to reduce disparities for LEP patients.

show abstract