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

Phyllis N. Butow, David Goldstein, Melanie L Bell, Ming Sze, Lynley J. Aldridge, Sarah Abdo, Michelle Tanious, Skye Dong, Rick Iedema, Janette Vardy, Ray Ashgari, Rina Hui, Maurice Eisenbruch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2801-2807
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume29
Issue number20
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 10 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Referral and Consultation
Neoplasms
Communication
Medical Oncology
Health
Telephone
Oncologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Butow, P. N., Goldstein, D., Bell, M. L., Sze, M., Aldridge, L. J., Abdo, S., ... Eisenbruch, M. (2011). Interpretation in consultations with immigrant patients with cancer: How accurate is it? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(20), 2801-2807. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.3335

Interpretation in consultations with immigrant patients with cancer : How accurate is it? / Butow, Phyllis N.; Goldstein, David; Bell, Melanie L; Sze, Ming; Aldridge, Lynley J.; Abdo, Sarah; Tanious, Michelle; Dong, Skye; Iedema, Rick; Vardy, Janette; Ashgari, Ray; Hui, Rina; Eisenbruch, Maurice.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 29, No. 20, 10.07.2011, p. 2801-2807.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Butow, PN, Goldstein, D, Bell, ML, Sze, M, Aldridge, LJ, Abdo, S, Tanious, M, Dong, S, Iedema, R, Vardy, J, Ashgari, R, Hui, R & Eisenbruch, M 2011, 'Interpretation in consultations with immigrant patients with cancer: How accurate is it?', Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 29, no. 20, pp. 2801-2807. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.3335
Butow, Phyllis N. ; Goldstein, David ; Bell, Melanie L ; Sze, Ming ; Aldridge, Lynley J. ; Abdo, Sarah ; Tanious, Michelle ; Dong, Skye ; Iedema, Rick ; Vardy, Janette ; Ashgari, Ray ; Hui, Rina ; Eisenbruch, Maurice. / Interpretation in consultations with immigrant patients with cancer : How accurate is it?. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2011 ; Vol. 29, No. 20. pp. 2801-2807.
@article{aec02173f15c4005b771a7192c31ce37,
title = "Interpretation in consultations with immigrant patients with cancer: How accurate is it?",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Butow, {Phyllis N.} and David Goldstein and Bell, {Melanie L} and Ming Sze and Aldridge, {Lynley J.} and Sarah Abdo and Michelle Tanious and Skye Dong and Rick Iedema and Janette Vardy and Ray Ashgari and Rina Hui and Maurice Eisenbruch",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2010.34.3335",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "2801--2807",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "20",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpretation in consultations with immigrant patients with cancer

T2 - How accurate is it?

AU - Butow, Phyllis N.

AU - Goldstein, David

AU - Bell, Melanie L

AU - Sze, Ming

AU - Aldridge, Lynley J.

AU - Abdo, Sarah

AU - Tanious, Michelle

AU - Dong, Skye

AU - Iedema, Rick

AU - Vardy, Janette

AU - Ashgari, Ray

AU - Hui, Rina

AU - Eisenbruch, Maurice

PY - 2011/7/10

Y1 - 2011/7/10

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960261578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960261578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.3335

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.3335

M3 - Article

C2 - 21670462

AN - SCOPUS:79960261578

VL - 29

SP - 2801

EP - 2807

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 20

ER -