Should culture affect practice? A comparison of prognostic discussions in consultations with immigrant versus native-born cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Poor prognosis is difficult to impart, particularly across a cultural divide. This study compared prognostic communication with immigrants (with and without interpreters) versus native-born patients in audio-taped oncology consultations. METHODS: Ten oncologists, 78 patients (31 Australian-born, 47 immigrants) and 115 family members participated. The first two consultations after diagnosis of incurable disease were audiotaped, transcribed and coded. 142 consultations were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Fifty percent of doctor and 59% of patient prognostic speech units were not interpreted or interpreted non-equivalently when an interpreter was present. Immigrant status predicted few prognostic facts, and oncologist characteristics no prognostic facts, disclosed. Oncologists were significantly less likely to convey hope to immigrants (p=0.0004), and more likely to use medical jargon (p=0.009) than with Australian-born patients. Incurable disease status and a limited life span were commonly acknowledged, generally with no timeframe provided. Physical issues were discussed more commonly than emotional aspects. CONCLUSIONS: While culture did not appear to influence doctor speech, interpreters filtered or blocked much prognostic communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Initiatives to empower all patients to attain needed information, optimise communication when an interpreter is present and train cancer health professionals in culturally appropriate care, are urgently required.

Interpretation in consultations with immigrant patients with cancer: how accurate is it?

PURPOSE: Immigrants with cancer often have professional and/or family interpreters to overcome challenges communicating with their health team. This study explored the rate and consequences of nonequivalent interpretation in medical oncology consultations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive immigrant patients with newly diagnosed with incurable cancer, who spoke Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, or Greek, were recruited from the practices of 10 medical oncologists in nine hospitals. Their first two consultations were audio taped, transcribed, translated into English and coded. RESULTS: Thirty-two of 78 participants had an interpreter at 49 consultations; 43% of interpreters were family, 35% professional, 18% both a professional and family, and 4% a health professional. Sixty-five percent of professional interpretations were equivalent to the original speech versus 50% for family interpreters (P= .02). Seventy percent of nonequivalent interpretations were inconsequential or positive; however, 10% could result in misunderstanding, in 5% the tone was more authoritarian than originally intended, and in 3% more certainty was conveyed. There were no significant differences in interpreter type for equivalency of interpretations. CONCLUSION: Nonequivalent interpretation is common, and not always innocuous. Our study suggests that there may remain a role for family or telephone versus face-to-face professional interpreters. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: careful communication between oncologists and interpreters is required to ensure optimal communication with the patient.