| Title |
Let’s Not Contribute to Disparities: The Best Methods for Teaching Clinicians How to Overcome Language Barriers to Health Care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-009-1201-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa C. Diamond, Elizabeth A. Jacobs |
| Abstract |
Clinicians should be educated about how language barriers contribute to disparities for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). However, educators must avoid developing educational interventions that increase health disparities for LEP patients. For example, studies suggest that teaching "Medical Spanish" or related courses may actually contribute to health care disparities if clinicians begin using these non-English language skills inappropriately with patients. We discuss the risks and benefits of teaching specific cultural competence skills and make evidence-based recommendations for the teaching content and methods for educational interventions focused on overcoming language barriers in health care. At minimum, we suggest such interventions include: (1) the role of language barriers in health disparities, (2) means of overcoming language barriers, (3) how to work with interpreters, (4) identifying and fixing problems in interpreted encounters, and (5) appropriate and safe use of one's own limited non-English language skills. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 115 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 16% |
| Researcher | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 11% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 21 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2019.
All research outputs
#15,687,152
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5,824
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,466
of 97,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#43
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 97,786 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.