Hablamos Juntos (Together We Speak): Interpreters, Provider Communication, and Satisfaction with Care

The Hablamos Juntos—Together We Speak (HJ)—national demonstration project targeted the improvement of language access for Spanish-speaking Latinos in areas with rapidly growing Latino populations. The objective of HJ was to improve doctor-patient communication by increasing access to and quality of interpreter services for Spanish-speaking patients. To investigate how access to interpreters for adult Spanish-speaking Latinos is associated with ratings of doctor/office staff communication and satisfaction with care. Cross-sectional cohort study. A total of 1,590 Spanish-speaking Latino adults from eight sites across the United States who participated in the outpatient HJ evaluation. We analyzed two multi-item measures of doctor communication (4 items) and office staff helpfulness (2 items), and one global item of satisfaction with care by interpreter use. We performed regression analyses to control for patient sociodemographic characteristics, survey year, and clustering at the site of care. Ninety-five percent of participants were born outside the US, 81% were females, and survey response rates ranged from 45% to 85% across sites. In this cohort of Spanish-speaking patients, those who needed and always used interpreters reported better experiences with care than their counterparts who needed but had interpreters unavailable. Patients who always used an interpreter had better adjusted ratings of doctor communication [effect size (ES = 0.51)], office staff helpfulness (ES = 0.37), and satisfaction with care (ES = 0.37) than patients who needed but did not always use an interpreter. Patients who needed and always used interpreters also reported better experiences with care in all three domains measured [doctor communication (ES = 0.30), office staff helpfulness (ES = 0.21), and satisfaction with care (ES = 0.23)] than patients who did not need interpreters. Among adult Spanish-speaking Latinos, interpreter use is independently associated with higher satisfaction with doctor communication, office staff helpfulness, and ambulatory care. Increased attention to the need for effective interpreter services is warranted in areas with rapidly growing Spanish-speaking populations

Living with diabetes: rationale, study design and baseline characteristics for an Australian prospective cohort study

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a major global public health threat. In Australia, as elsewhere, it is responsible for a sizeable portion of the overall burden of disease, and significant costs. The psychological and social impact of diabetes on individuals with the disease can be severe, and if not adequately addressed, can lead to the worsening of the overall disease picture. The Living With Diabetes Study aims to contribute to a holistic understanding of the psychological and social aspects of diabetes mellitus

Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions

Background Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone’s touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice (ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention. Objectives To assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process, cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes. Search methods We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between 1980 and June 2015. Selection criteria Randomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies. Main results We included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome reporting to be unclear. For preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty). For screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462; high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care. It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening. Appointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions (25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS, compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage) related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data. The above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use. Multimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity, weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure, hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/ substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia, obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers. Only four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the intervention

Satisfaction With Provider Communication Among Spanish-Speaking Medicaid Enrollees

OBJECTIVE: To determine if differences between English- and Spanish-speaking parents in ratings of their children\u27s health care can be explained by need for interpretive services. METHODS: Using the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey-Child-Survey (CAHPS), reports about provider communication were compared among 3 groups of parents enrolled in a Medicaid managed care health plan: 1) English speakers, 2) Spanish speakers with no self-reported need for interpretive services, and 3) Spanish speakers with self-reported need for interpretive services. Parents were asked to report how well their providers 1) listened carefully to what was being said, 2) explained things in a way that could be understood, 3) respected their comments and concerns, and 4) spent enough time during medical encounters. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the ratings of each of the 3 groups while controlling for child\u27s gender, parent\u27s gender, parent\u27s educational attainment, child\u27s health status, and survey year. RESULTS: Spanish-speaking parents in need of interpretive services were less likely to report that providers spent enough time with their children (odds ratio = 0.34, 95% confidence interval = 0.17-0.68) compared to English-speaking parents. There was no statistically significant difference found between Spanish-speaking parents with no need of interpretive services and English-speaking parents. CONCLUSIONS: Among Spanish- versus English-speaking parents, differences in ratings of whether providers spent enough time with children during medical encounters appear to be explained, in part, by need for interpretive services. No other differences in ratings of provider communication were found

Disparities in Glycemic Control Among Hispanic Adults With Diabetes

Background/Aims: Poor glycemic control is associated with increased morbidity and mortality for adults with diabetes mellitus (DM). Little research has examined disparities in glycemic control among Hispanics with DM compared to whites. The objective of this work was to determine: 1) whether disparities in glycemic control exist among Hispanics versus whites; and 2) whether demographics, socioeconomic status, disease characteristics, health care utilization (primary care, specialty care, care management services) and treatment characteristics (oral hypoglycemic medications, insulin use) explain differences in glycemic control. Methods: Using an observational study design, we studied 29,825 adults on the Kaiser Permanente Northwest DM registry as of January 1, 2013, with a valid HbA1c test during calendar year 2013. Good glycemic control was defined as HbA1c 30 (vs. body mass index \u3c 30), Charlson comorbidity score (continuous), primary care utilization in 2013 (1+ visits vs. none), specialty care utilization (1+ visits vs. none), use of DM care management services (1+ services vs. none), use of oral hypoglycemic medications (1+ medications fills vs. none) and insulin use (any insulin use vs. none). Seven logistic models were constructed: model 1 (race/ethnicity), model 2 (model 1 + demographics), model 3 (model 2 + SES), model 4 (model 3 + disease characteristics), model 5 (model 4 + health care utilization) and model 6 (model 5 + treatment characteristics). Results: Hispanics were less likely to have good glycemic control in unadjusted models (odds ratio: 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51–0.61; P\u3c0.0001). This point estimate remained consisted across all logistic models examined, even after adjusting for covariate measures (odds ratio: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.62–0.77; P\u3c0.0001). Discussion: Our findings suggest that disparities in glycemic control among Hispanics compared to whites remain even after adjusting for critical covariate measures. More work is needed to understand whether lifestyle choices and other factors explain differences and whether targeted interventions can reduce these disparities