Communication challenges experienced by migrants with cancer: A comparison of migrant and English-speaking Australian-born cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding the difficulties faced by different migrant groups is vital to address disparities and inform targeted health-care service delivery. Migrant oncology patients experience increased morbidity, mortality and psychological distress, with this tentatively linked to language and communication difficulties. The objective of this exploratory study was to investigate the communication barriers and challenges experienced by Arabic, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese) speaking oncology patients in Australia. METHODS: This study employed a cross-sectional design using patient-reported outcome survey data from migrant and English-speaking Australian-born patients with cancer. Patients were recruited through oncology clinics and Australian state cancer registries. Data were collected regarding patient clinical and demographic characteristics and health-care and communication experiences. Data from the clinics and registries were combined for analysis. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between migrant groups in demographic characteristics, communication and health-care experiences, and information and care preferences. Chinese patients cited problems with understanding medical information, the Australian health-care system, and communicating with their health-care team. Conversely, Arabic- and Greek-speaking patients reported higher understanding of the health-care system, and less communication difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings suggest that migrant groups differ from each other in their health communication expectations and requirements. Lower education and health literacy of some groups may play a role in poorer health outcomes. Public health interventions and assistance provided to migrants should be tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of that language or cultural group. Future research directions are discussed.

Treatment of holistic suffering in cancer: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Holistic suffering is a debilitating problem for cancer patients. Although many treatments have been suggested for its alleviation, they have not been compared for effectiveness. AIM: This literature review seeks to identify what interventions are effective in treatment of holistic suffering of cancer patients. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted to identify and evaluate studies of interventions for holistic suffering in adult cancer patients. Search terms were generated iteratively from the literature. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and PsycINFO databases were searched for the years 1992-2015. Included studies were peer-reviewed, English language reports of either a controlled trial or a randomised controlled trial focusing on therapies aimed at relieving suffering in adult cancer patients. Articles were excluded if focused predominantly on spiritual or existential issues or concerns not leading to suffering. Studies were graded for quality using the QualSyst quantitative checklist. Levels of evidence were ascertained by completing the National Health and Medical Research Council criteria. Results are reported according to AMSTAR guidelines. RESULTS: The studies represented seven intervention types. Meaning-centred, hope-centred and stress-reduction interventions were found to be effective. Results of both psycho-educational and spiritual interventions in improving spiritual well-being were mixed. Supportive-expressive interventions - with the exception of forgiveness therapy - were not efficacious. There was little or no evidence for the efficacy of creative and healing arts and other assessed interventions such as animal therapy and haptotherapy. CONCLUSION: This systematic review found that spiritual well-being, meaning, hope and benefit finding can be positively impacted by a variety of treatment modalities.

Conceptual analysis of suffering in cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Patient suffering is a neglected area of care, partly because of poor definitions. The aim of this study was to distill what is currently known about suffering in the health literature in order to generate a conceptual basis for further research. METHODS: A systematic review focusing on suffering across all cancers was undertaken. The search included peer-reviewed English articles published between 1992 and 2012 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library databases focusing on conceptualisation of suffering in adult cancer patients. Seminal theoretical articles conceptualising suffering more generally were also eligible. To ensure identification of a sufficiently broad range of conceptualisations of suffering in cancer, the search strategy was drafted iteratively. Study findings were subjected to conceptual analysis using the evolutionary method. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight studies were identified, which discussed definitions or conceptualisations of suffering. In terms of its attributes, suffering is defined as 'an all-encompassing, dynamic, individual phenomenon characterized by the experience of alienation, helplessness, hopelessness and meaninglessness in the sufferer which is difficult for them to articulate. It is multi-dimensional and usually incorporates an undesirable, negative quality.' Surrogate terms, antecedents and consequences of suffering are described. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review revealed that suffering includes holistic suffering, which is multidimensional, oscillating, individual and difficult for individuals to express. Opportunities should be provided for patients to express their suffering. The potential for suffering to be transcended needs to be recognized and facilitated by healthcare staff.

Assessment of spiritual suffering in the cancer context: A systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: An important goal of cancer medicine is relief of patients' suffering. In view of the clinical challenges of identifying suffering patients, we sought to identify valid instruments for assessing the spiritual suffering of people diagnosed with cancer. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was conducted in the Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases seeking assessment instruments that measure either suffering or one of its synonyms or symptoms. The psychometric properties of the identified measures were compared. RESULTS: A total of 90 articles were identified that supplied information about 58 measures. The constructs examined were: suffering, hopelessness/demoralization, hope, meaning, spiritual well-being, quality of life where a spiritual/existential dimension was included, distress in the palliative care setting and pain, distress or struggle of a spiritual nature. The Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM) (patient completed) was the most promising measure identified for measuring the burden of suffering caused by illness due to its ease of use and the inclusion of a subjective component. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Although the appropriateness of any measure for the assessment of spiritual suffering in cancer patients will depend on the context in which it is intended to be utilized, the PRISM is promising for measuring the burden of suffering due to illness.

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.

Inferior health-related quality of life and psychological well-being in immigrant cancer survivors: a population-based study.

This study compared health-related quality of life (QOL) and psychological morbidity in a population-based sample of first generation immigrant and Anglo-Australian cancer survivors. Eligible participants, recruited via three State Cancer Registries, included those: with a new diagnosis of one of 12 most incident cancers (all stages) 1-6years earlier; aged 18-80 at diagnosis; born in a Chinese, Arabic, or Greek speaking country and able to speak one of these languages. A random sample of English-speaking Anglo-Australian-born controls frequency matched for cancer diagnosis was recruited. 596 patients (277 of whom were immigrants) participated (a 26% response rate). In multiple linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, socio-economic status, time since diagnosis and type of cancer, immigrants had clinically significantly worse QOL (5.4-8.5 points on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), P<0·0001), higher depression (P<0·0001) and higher incidence of clinical depression (P<0·01) than Anglo-Australians. Understanding the health system partially mediated this relationship for depression (P=0·0004) and QOL (P=0·001). Immigrant survivors of cancer have worse psychological and QOL outcomes than Anglo-Australians. Potential targets for intervention include assistance in navigating the health system, translated information and cultural competency training for health professionals.

A bridge between cultures: interpreters' perspectives of consultations with migrant oncology patients.

BACKGROUND: Migration is increasing worldwide. In previous research into people with cancer from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, interpreter accuracy, professionalism and continuity have emerged as key concerns for patients. Little is known about interpreters' perceptions of their role and the challenges they face. This study aimed to obtain their perspective. METHODS: Thirty interpreters (Greek n = 7, Chinese n = 11, and Arabic n = 12) participated in four focus groups which were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed for themes using N-Vivo software. RESULTS: Skills as an interpreter were broadly perceived as conveying information accurately, being confidential and impartial. Three broad dilemmas faced by interpreters emerged: accuracy versus understanding; translating only versus cultural advocacy and sensitivity; and professionalism versus providing support. Some saw themselves as merely an accurate conduit of information, while others saw their role in broader terms, encompassing patient advocacy, cultural brokerage and provision of emotional support. Perceived challenges in their role included lack of continuity, managing their own emotions especially after bad news consultations, and managing diverse patient and family expectations. Training and support needs included medical terminology, communication and counselling skills and debriefing. Interpreters suggested that oncologists check on interpreter/patient's language or dialect compatibility; use lay language and short sentences; and speak in the first person. CONCLUSIONS: Resolving potential conflicts between information provision and advocacy is an important area of cross-cultural communication research. Further training and support is required to enhance interpreters' competence in managing delicate situations from a professional, cultural and psychological perspective; and to assist doctors to collaborate with interpreters to ensure culturally competent communication. Ultimately, this will improve interpreters' well-being and patient care.

Cultural differences in athlete attributions for success and failure: the sports pages revisited.

Self-serving biases in attribution, while found with relative consistency in research with Western samples, have rarely been found in Japanese samples typically recruited for research. However, research conducted with Japanese participants to date has tended to use forced-choice and/or reactive paradigms, with school or university students, focusing mainly on academic performance or arbitrary and/or researcher-selected tasks. This archival study explored whether self-serving attributional biases would be shown in the real-life attributions for sporting performance made by elite Olympic athletes from Japan and Australia. Attributions (N = 216) were extracted from the sports pages of Japanese and Australian newspapers and rated by Australian judges for locus and controllability. It was hypothesized that Australian, but not Japanese, athletes would show self-serving biases such that they attributed wins to causes more internal and controllable than the causes to which they attributed losses. Contrary to predictions, self-serving biases were shown to at least some extent by athletes of both nationalities. Both Australian and Japanese men attributed wins to causes more internal than those to which they attributed losses. Women, however, attributed wins and losses to causes that did not differ significantly in terms of locus. All athletes tended to attribute wins to causes that were more controllable than the causes to which losses were attributed. Results are inconsistent with a large body of research suggesting that Japanese do not show self-serving biases in attribution, and are discussed in the light of differences in methodology, context, and participants that may have contributed to these effects.

Psychological morbidity and quality of life of ethnic minority patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic minority is associated with higher cancer incidence and poorer survival than is being in the majority group. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether psychological morbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were affected by minority status. METHODS: We searched Medline, AMED, PsycINFO, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science for English-language articles published between Jan 1, 1995, and October, 2009. Articles were eligible if they reported original data on anxiety, depression, distress (for psychological morbidity), or HRQoL in minority and majority cancer patients or survivors. Minority status was defined as being an immigrant or having an ethnic, linguistic, or religious background different to the majority of the population in the country where the research was done. We excluded African Americans and indigenous groups. Eligible articles were rated for quality of reporting, external validity, internal validity, sample size, and power. Each quality criterion was rated independently by two reviewers until inter-rater reliability was achieved. In a meta-analysis we compared mean scores adjusted for socioeconomic status and other sociodemographic and clinical variables, where available. Effect sizes greater than 0·5 and 95% CI that included 0·5 or -0·5 were deemed clinically important, with negative values indicating worse outcomes in minority patients. We assessed publication bias by estimating the number of potential unpublished studies and the number of non-signficant studies with p=0·05 required to produce a non-significant overall result. FINDINGS: We identified 21 eligible articles that included 18 datasets collected in the USA and one in each of Canada, Romania, and the UK. Ethnic minority groups were Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Hungarian (one dataset). Overall, we found minority versus majority groups to have significantly worse distress (mean difference -0·37, 95% CI -0·46 to -0·28; p<0·0001), depression (-0·23, -0·36 to -0·11; p=0·0003), and overall HRQoL (-0·33, -0·58 to -0·07; p=0·013). Further analyses found disparities to be specific to Hispanic patients in the USA, in whom poorer outcomes were consistent with potentially clinically important differences for distress (effect size -0·37, 95% CI -0·54 to -0·20; p<0·0001), social HRQoL (-0·45, -0·87 to -0·03; p=0·035), and overall HRQoL (-0·49, -0·78 to -0.20; p=0·0008). Results were significantly heterogeneous for overall HRQoL and all domains. Tests for interaction, for adjusted versus unadjusted and comparisons of high-quality, medium-quality, and low-quality articles, were generally non-significant, which suggests no bias. We found no evidence of any substantive publication bias. INTERPRETATION: Hispanic cancer patients in the USA, but not other ethnic minority groups, report significantly worse distress, depression, social HRQoL, and overall HRQoL than do majority patients, of which all but depression might be clinically important. Heterogeneous results might, however, have limited the interpretation. Data for other minority groups and for anxiety are scarce. More studies are needed from outside the USA. Future reports should more clearly describe their minority group samples and analyses should control for clinical and sociodemographic variables known to predict outcomes. Understanding of why outcomes are poor in US Hispanic patients is needed to inform the targeting of interventions. FUNDING: Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

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.

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.

Prevalence and predictors of anxiety and depression in women with invasive ovarian cancer and their caregivers.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence and predictors of depression and anxiety in women with ovarian cancer and their caregivers, to compare levels of depression and anxiety with community norms, and to explore the relationship between patients and their nominated caregivers. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study of 798 women with invasive ovarian cancer recruited between 1 January 2002 and 30 June 2006 through the nationwide Australian Ovarian Cancer Study, and 373 of their caregivers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression and anxiety as assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the role of demographic variables, disease and treatment variables, psychosocial variables, and use of mental health and support services as potential predictors. RESULTS: Rates of anxiety and depression among patients were significantly lower than in previous reports, although clinical depression rates (5.9%) were significantly higher than community norms (3.0%; chi2 = 24.0; P < 0.001). Caregivers also reported higher levels of depression (chi2 = 21.1; P < 0.001) and anxiety (chi2 = 17.6; P < 0.001) compared with norms. There was no difference within patient-caregiver pairs for depression (P = 0.1), while caregivers reported significantly higher anxiety than patients (P < 0.01). In patients, higher symptom burden, lower optimism and current specialist mental health treatment all significantly predicted both depression and anxiety, while lower social support was a significant predictor of patient anxiety only. In caregivers, lower social support and lower optimism were significant predictors of depression and anxiety. Patients being treated for mental health was also a predictor of their caregiver's depression. CONCLUSIONS: While depression is significantly more common in women with ovarian cancer than in the general population, it is caregivers of such patients who report much higher levels of both subclinical and clinical depression and anxiety.