Skye Dong

Grappling with cultural differences; Communication between oncologists and immigrant cancer patients with and without interpreters

OBJECTIVE Immigrants report challenges communicating with their health team. This study compared oncology consultations of immigrants with and without interpreters vs Anglo-Australian patients. METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancer who had immigrated from Arabic, Chinese or Greek speaking countries or were Anglo-Australian, and family members, were recruited from 10 medical oncologists in 9 hospitals. Two consultations from each patient were audio-taped, transcribed, translated into English and coded. RESULTS Seventy-eight patients (47 immigrant and 31 Anglo-Australian) and 115 family members (77 immigrant and 38 Anglo Australian) participated in 141 audio-taped consultations. Doctors spoke less to immigrants with interpreters than to Anglo-Australians (1443 vs. 2246 words, p=0.0001), spent proportionally less time on cancer related issues (p=0.005) and summarising and informing (p≤0.003) and more time on other medical issues (p=0.0008) and directly advising (p=0.0008). Immigrants with interpreters gave more high intensity cues (10.4 vs 7.4). Twenty percent of cues were not interpreted. Doctors tended to delay responses to or ignore more immigrant than Anglo-Australian cues (13% vs 5%, p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS Immigrant cancer patients with interpreters experience different interactions with their doctors than Anglo-Australians, which may compromise their well-being and decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Guidelines and proven training programmes are needed to improve communication with immigrant patients, particularly those with interpreters.

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.

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.

Migrant Health in Cancer: Outcome Disparities and the Determinant Role of Migrant-Specific Variables

BACKGROUND Multiethnic societies face challenges in delivering evidence-based culturally competent health care. This study compared health-related quality of life and psychological morbidity in a hospital-based sample of first-generation migrants and Australian-born Anglo cancer patients, controlling for potential confounders related to migrant status. Further, it explored the relative contribution of ethnicity versus migrant-related variables. METHODS Eligible participants, recruited via 16 oncology clinics in Australia, included those over the age of 18, diagnosed with cancer (any type or stage) within the previous 12 months and having commenced treatment at least 1 month previously. RESULTS In total, 571 migrant patients (comprising 145 Arabic, 248 Chinese, and 178 Greek) and a control group of 274 Anglo-Australian patients participated. In multiple linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, socioeconomic status, time since diagnosis, and type of cancer, migrants had clinically significantly worse health-related quality of life (HRQL; 3.6-7.3 points on FACT-G, p < .0001), higher depression and anxiety (both p < .0001), and higher incidence of clinical depression (p < .0001) and anxiety (p = .003) than Anglo-Australians. Understanding the health system (p < .0001 for each outcome) and difficulty communicating with the doctor (p = .04 to .0001) partially mediated the impact of migrancy. In migrant-only analyses, migrant-related variables (language difficulty and poor understanding of the health system), not ethnicity, predicted outcomes. CONCLUSION Migrants who develop cancer have worse psychological and HRQL outcomes than Anglo-Australians. Potential targets for intervention include assistance in navigating the health system, translated information, and cultural competency training for health professionals.

Patients’ experiences and perspectives of multiple concurrent symptoms in advanced cancer: a semi-structured interview study

PurposePatients with advanced cancer typically experience multiple concurrent symptoms, which have a detrimental impact on patient outcomes. No studies to date have qualitatively explored advanced cancer patients’ perceptions of multiple symptoms in oncology and palliative care settings. Understanding the experience of multiple symptoms can inform integrated clinical pathways for treating, assessing and reducing symptom burden. This study aims to describe the beliefs, attitudes and experiences of patients with multiple symptoms in advanced cancer.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 58 advanced cancer patients (23 inpatients and 35 outpatients), recruited purposively from two palliative care centres and two hospital-based oncology departments in Sydney, Australia. Transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsSix major themes were identified: imminence of death and deterioration (impending death, anticipatory fear); overwhelming loss of control (symptom volatility, debilitating exhaustion, demoralisation, isolation); impinging on autonomy and identity (losing independence, refusal to a diminished self, self-advocacy, reluctance to burden others); psychological adaptation (accepting the impossibility of recovery, seeking distractions, maintaining hope, mindfulness, accommodating self-limitations), burden of self-management responsibility (perpetual self-monitoring, ambiguity in self-report, urgency of decision making, optimising management); and valuing security and empowerment (safety in coordinated care, compassionate care, fear of medical abandonment, dependence on social support). Patients transitioning from oncology to palliative care settings were more vulnerable to self-management burden.ConclusionMultiple symptoms have a profound impact on patients’ autonomy, function and psychological state. Multiple symptom management and integrated care is needed to empower advanced cancer patients and reduce their struggles with self-management burden, hopelessness, isolation, fear of abandonment and mortality anxieties.

Clinicians' Perspectives on Managing Symptom Clusters in Advanced Cancer: A Semistructured Interview Study

CONTEXT Managing symptom clusters or multiple concurrent symptoms in patients with advanced cancer remains a clinical challenge. The optimal processes constituting effective management of symptom clusters remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES To describe the attitudes and strategies of clinicians in managing multiple co-occurring symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS Semistructured interviews were conducted with 48 clinicians (palliative care physicians [n = 10], oncologists [n = 6], general practitioners [n = 6], nurses [n = 12], and allied health providers [n = 14]), purposively recruited from two acute hospitals, two palliative care centers, and four community general practices in Sydney, Australia. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and adapted grounded theory. RESULTS Six themes were identified: uncertainty in decision making (inadequacy of scientific evidence, relying on experiential knowledge, and pressure to optimize care); attunement to patient and family (sensitivity to multiple cues, prioritizing individual preferences, addressing psychosocial and physical interactions, and opening Pandoras box); deciphering cause to guide intervention (disaggregating symptoms and interactions, flexibility in assessment, and curtailing investigative intrusiveness); balancing complexities in medical management (trading off side effects, minimizing mismatched goals, and urgency in resolving severe symptoms); fostering hope and empowerment (allaying fear of the unknown, encouraging meaning making, championing patient empowerment, and truth telling); and depending on multidisciplinary expertise (maximizing knowledge exchange, sharing management responsibility, contending with hierarchical tensions, and isolation and discontinuity of care). CONCLUSION Management of symptom clusters, as both an art and a science, is currently fraught with uncertainty in decision making. Strengthening multidisciplinary collaboration, continuity of care, more pragmatic planning of clinical trials to address more than one symptom, and training in symptom cluster management are required.

Exploring symptom meaning: perspectives of palliative care physicians

ContextUnderstanding patients’ symptom experiences is essential to providing effective clinical care. The discussion between patients and physicians of symptom meaning and its significance, however, is ill understood.ObjectivesTo investigate palliative care physicians’ understanding of symptom meaning, and their experiences of and attitudes towards the discussion of symptom meaning with patients.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted (N = 17) across Sydney, Australia. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis.ResultsSix key themes were identified: (1) definitions of symptom meaning (causal meanings, functional impact, existential impact, and cascade of meanings); (2) meanings are personal (demographic, culture, spiritual, and family differences); (3) eliciting meanings requires subtlety and trust (following the patient’s cues); discussing meaning can be (4) hard (for the patient and health professional); (5) therapeutic (assuaging fears, feeling listened to and valued, increased sense of control, and reduced symptom distress); and (6) enhances clinicians’ practice and work satisfaction (provision of more tailored care, reassurance through the provision of information, and strengthening of doctor-patient relationship).ConclusionsExploring symptom meaning can serve to provide information, alleviate anxiety, and facilitate individualised care, but only when patients present cues or are open to discuss symptom-related concerns. However, various barriers hinder such dialogue in consultations. Greater awareness of symptom meaning and its influence may facilitate physicians exploring symptom meaning more with patients in the future.