Including migrant oncology patients in research: A multisite pilot randomised controlled trial testing consultation audio-recordings and question prompt lists.

Background: Oncology patients who are migrants or refugees face worse outcomes due to language and communication barriers impacting care. Interventions such as consultation audio-recordings and question prompt lists may prove beneficial in mediating communication challenges. However, designing robust research inclusive of patients who do not speak English is challenging. This study therefore aimed to: a) pilot test and assess the appropriateness of the proposed research design and methods for engaging migrant populations, and b) determine whether a multi-site RCT efficacy assessment of the communication intervention utilising these methods is feasible. Methods: This study is a mixed-methods parallel-group, randomised controlled feasibility pilot trial. Feasibility outcomes comprised assessment of: i) screening and recruitment processes, ii) design and procedures, and iii) research time and costing. The communication intervention comprised audio-recordings of a key medical consultation with an interpreter, and question prompt lists and cancer information translated into Arabic, Greek, Traditional, and Simplified Chinese. Results: Assessment of feasibility parameters revealed that despite barriers, methods utilised in this study supported the inclusion of migrant oncology patients in research. A future multi-site RCT efficacy assessment of the INFORM communication intervention using these methods is feasible if recommendations to strengthen screening and recruitment are adopted. Importantly, hiring of bilingual research assistants, and engagement with community and consumer advocates is essential. Early involvement of clinical and interpreting staff as key stakeholders is likewise recommended. Conclusion: Results from this feasibility RCT help us better understand and overcome the challenges and misconceptions about including migrant patients in clinical research.

Translation and back-translation methodology in health research - a critique.

Introduction: While back translation has been widely used in medical research surveying linguistically diverse populations, research literature often fails to document this complex translation process. Our study examines inadequacies in the use of back translation, suggests improvements, as well as suggesting where other translation strategies may be more appropriate.Areas covered: This paper cites numerous metastudies showing how back translation is often uncritically adopted in validation of research instruments, pointing to potential methodological failings, before examining the back-translation processes in an Australian study of non-English speaking cancer patients. Our study of back translation applied to patient self-report questionnaires demonstrates that appropriate renditions of items are critically dependent upon both translator and researcher awareness of item purpose, overall project specifications and identification of linguistic ambiguities in source test items. The poor implementation and documentation of back-translation processes in many studies indicate alternatives to back translation may be appropriate.Expert opinion: Where translations are used in research, translation processes need to be made explicit in research protocols and reports, and translation experts need to be part of the research team, with translation guidance and advice integrated into all stages of research design.

Culturally and linguistically diverse oncology patients' perspectives of consultation audio-recordings and question prompt lists.

OBJECTIVE: Ethnicity and migrant status result in disparities with cancer burden and survival, with communication difficulties cited as the main barrier to access. Our research team tested a communication intervention package comprising consultation audio-recordings (ARs) and question prompt lists (QPLs) for low English-speaking (LES) patients with cancer. This study explored LES patient experiences, preferences, and recommendations regarding the communication package. METHODS: Participants completed a questionnaire and qualitative interview regarding ARs and QPLs. Eligibility criteria comprised aged ≥18 years old; a consultation with an oncologist between June 1, 2015 and April 1, 2016; an Arabic, Cantonese, Greek, or Mandarin professional interpreter booked for that consultation; and randomised to receive the communication intervention. RESULTS: Eighteen patients completed the qualitative interview and 17 completed the questionnaire. Fifteen reported listening to the AR at least once. Participants reported that QPLs and ARs provide support and assistance with remembering and understanding medical information. Both resources were seen as having applicability beyond the oncology setting in regards to improving health service delivery and continuity of care. However, patients felt that individual tailoring of the resources should be considered. Patients also found it useful to share ARs with family. CONCLUSIONS: The LES participants in this study considered the ARs and QPLs useful for most, but not all contexts. Recommendations regarding delivery and use highlight that these resources should be tailored and patient-driven. Further, patients foresaw a range of additional uses for consultation ARs within the broader healthcare context.

Measuring recall of medical information in non-English-speaking people with cancer: A methodology.

BACKGROUND: Many patients who require an interpreter have difficulty remembering information from their medical consultations. Memory aids such as consultation audio-recordings may be of benefit to these patients. However, there is no established means of measuring patients' memory of medical information. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop a method for eliciting and coding recall of medical information in non-English-speaking patients. DESIGN: This method, called Patient-Interpreter-Clinician coding (PICcode), was developed in the context of a phase II trial conducted in two outpatient oncology clinics in Melbourne, Australia, and was refined iteratively through consultation with an expert panel and piloting. Between-coder differences in early versions of the coding system were resolved through discussion and consensus resulting in refinements to PICcode. RESULTS: The final version of PICcode involved transcribing, translating and coding of audio-recorded consultations and semi-structured interviews (SSI). The SSIs were designed to elicit patients' free-recall of medical information. Every unit of medical information in the consultation was identified and categorized in a coding tree. SSIs were coded to identify the extent to which information was recalled from the consultation. DISCUSSION: The iterative changes involved in developing PICcode assisted in clarifying precise details of the process and produced a widely applicable coding system. PICcode is the most comprehensively described method of determining the amount of information that patients who use an interpreter recall from their medical consultations. PICcode can be adapted for English-speaking patients and other healthcare populations.