Language inclusivity in health research: An institutional current state quality assessment

Q3 Medicine
K. An , J. Claydon , M.L. Woodward , J. Zhao , S. Chhina , B. Udall , Q. Doan
{"title":"Language inclusivity in health research: An institutional current state quality assessment","authors":"K. An ,&nbsp;J. Claydon ,&nbsp;M.L. Woodward ,&nbsp;J. Zhao ,&nbsp;S. Chhina ,&nbsp;B. Udall ,&nbsp;Q. Doan","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2023.100946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To address health inequity with evidence-based care, research needs to be inclusive. One of the most common practices when facing language barriers is the exclusion of participants with limited English proficiency (LEP). Language provisions in clinical research are necessary to ensure diversity and inclusion in research, and thus health equity. We evaluated the inclusion or exclusion of participants with LEP through provisions (or lack thereof) of language accommodations in research study designs and protocols at our institution.</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>A cross-sectional quality improvement evaluation reviewed approved submissions to the University of British Columbia Children's &amp; Women's (UBC C&amp;W) research ethics board (REB) between 2017 to 2021 inclusively. Qualitative data was thematically coded and quantitatively analyzed to assess provisions for research activities to be completed in non-official languages.</p></div><div><h3>Results/Discussion</h3><p>Six hundred and ninety-eight prospective study submissions involving interaction with patients and public participants approved by the UBC C&amp;W REB were reviewed. Just under a third (228/698) of submissions specifically excluded participants based on English language proficiency. Of the submissions that included participants with LEP, only 53.0% (249/470) made any mention of provisions for participants with LEP. All studies providing full language provisions, including translation of study documents and interpretation for the informed consent process, were funded in some capacity.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion/Perspectives</h3><p>A third of REB submissions at the UBC C&amp;W make provisions for research participants with LEP to include them in clinical research. Insufficient funding may be a key factor prohibiting provision of language accommodations, which may be a targetable barrier in designing accessible and inclusive clinical studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"31 ","pages":"Article 100946"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552523000774","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

To address health inequity with evidence-based care, research needs to be inclusive. One of the most common practices when facing language barriers is the exclusion of participants with limited English proficiency (LEP). Language provisions in clinical research are necessary to ensure diversity and inclusion in research, and thus health equity. We evaluated the inclusion or exclusion of participants with LEP through provisions (or lack thereof) of language accommodations in research study designs and protocols at our institution.

Methodology

A cross-sectional quality improvement evaluation reviewed approved submissions to the University of British Columbia Children's & Women's (UBC C&W) research ethics board (REB) between 2017 to 2021 inclusively. Qualitative data was thematically coded and quantitatively analyzed to assess provisions for research activities to be completed in non-official languages.

Results/Discussion

Six hundred and ninety-eight prospective study submissions involving interaction with patients and public participants approved by the UBC C&W REB were reviewed. Just under a third (228/698) of submissions specifically excluded participants based on English language proficiency. Of the submissions that included participants with LEP, only 53.0% (249/470) made any mention of provisions for participants with LEP. All studies providing full language provisions, including translation of study documents and interpretation for the informed consent process, were funded in some capacity.

Conclusion/Perspectives

A third of REB submissions at the UBC C&W make provisions for research participants with LEP to include them in clinical research. Insufficient funding may be a key factor prohibiting provision of language accommodations, which may be a targetable barrier in designing accessible and inclusive clinical studies.

健康研究中的语言包容性:一项机构现状质量评估
背景为了通过循证护理解决健康不平等问题,研究需要具有包容性。面对语言障碍时,最常见的做法之一是将英语水平有限的参与者排除在外。临床研究中的语言规定是必要的,以确保研究的多样性和包容性,从而确保健康公平。我们通过在我们机构的研究设计和方案中提供(或缺乏)语言便利来评估LEP参与者的纳入或排除情况。方法:一项横断面质量改进评估审查了向不列颠哥伦比亚大学儿童与健康中心提交的已批准的意见书;2017年至2021年期间,妇女(UBC C&;W)研究伦理委员会(REB)。对定性数据进行了主题编码和定量分析,以评估将以非官方语文完成的研究活动的经费。结果/讨论经UBC&;W REB进行了审查。在提交的材料中,不到三分之一(228/698)的材料根据英语水平专门排除了参与者。在包括LEP参与者在内的提交材料中,只有53.0%(249/470)提到了对LEP参与者的规定。所有提供完整语言条款的研究,包括研究文件的翻译和知情同意程序的口译,都以某种身份获得了资助。结论/观点UBC C&;W为患有LEP的研究参与者制定了将他们纳入临床研究的规定。资金不足可能是禁止提供语言便利的一个关键因素,这可能是设计无障碍和包容性临床研究的一个有针对性的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信