Representations and coverage of non-English-speaking immigrants and multicultural issues in three major Australian health care publications

Abstract

BackgroundNo recent Australian studies or literature, provide evidence of the extent of coverage of multicultural health issues in Australian healthcare research. A series of systematic literature reviews in three major Australian healthcare journals were undertaken to discover the level, content, coverage and overall quality of research on multicultural health. Australian healthcare journals selected for the study were The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA), The Australian Health Review (AHR), and The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (ANZPH). Reviews were undertaken of the last twelve (12) years (1996-August 2008) of journal articles using six standard search terms: 'non-English-speaking', 'ethnic', 'migrant', 'immigrant', 'refugee' and 'multicultural'.ResultsIn total there were 4,146 articles published in these journals over the 12-year period. A total of 90 or 2.2% of the total articles were articles primarily based on multicultural issues. A further 62 articles contained a major or a moderate level of consideration of multicultural issues, and 107 had a minor mention.ConclusionsThe quantum and range of multicultural health research and evidence required for equity in policy, services, interventions and implementation is limited and uneven. Most of the original multicultural health research articles focused on newly arrived refugees, asylum seekers, Vietnamese or South East Asian communities. While there is some seminal research in respect of these represented groups, there are other communities and health issues that are essentially invisible or unrepresented in research. The limited coverage and representation of multicultural populations in research studies has implications for evidence-based health and human services policy.

Satisfaction with emergency department service among non‐English‐speaking background patients

“…The participants were divided into two groups: patients from main English‐speaking countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, South Africa, the UK and the USA) and patients from other countries where English is not the principal language . Arguing that being from an NESB did not indicate disadvantage, the federal government formally replaced the term NESB with ‘culturally and linguistically diverse’ in 1996 . However, we chose to employ the old term ‘NESB’ to indicate that patients from this group might be disadvantaged in terms of access to appropriate healthcare facilities because of language and cultural barriers.…”

Addressing migration-related social and health inequalities in Australia: call for research funding priorities to recognise the needs of migrant populations

“…15 A recent systematic review of articles published in three major Australian healthcare journals found that only 2.2% of articles were based on multicultural health issues. 16 Given the fact that 5.5 million Australians are born overseas, this figure suggests a significant under-representation of migrants in research. 16 Migrants are also under-represented in clinical trials, which often require participants to speak English fluently.…”

“…16 Given the fact that 5.5 million Australians are born overseas, this figure suggests a significant under-representation of migrants in research. 16 Migrants are also under-represented in clinical trials, which often require participants to speak English fluently. 4 Furthermore, as pointed out above, the statistics produced by the HILDA and LSAC surveys may not be truly representative of the entire Australian population because they do not include migrant communities who often have a higher prevalence of diseases by virtue of their ethnicity.…”

Communication Vulnerabilities in Working-age Australians with Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Cross-sectional Analysis

“…Finally, relying on imperfect surrogates for measures not directly available in the NHS07-08 limits the strength of the conclusions regarding these particular characteristics. The proxy used for English language proficiency was migration from a country where English is not the primary spoken language, a commonly used surrogate for cultural and linguistic diversity and non-English first language 30 . We used this proxy because people migrating from non-English-speaking countries are potentially at risk of CV, irrespective of local language proficiency, because of unfamiliarity with navigating and accessing the healthcare system 31 .…”