Table 2:
Summary of Studies Included in Final Analysis (n=15)
| Total N (%) | |
|---|---|
| Study Design | |
| Qualitative | 7 (47%) |
| Quantitative | 4 (27%) |
| Mixed-methods | 4 (27%) |
| Data Collection Method ⤉ | |
| Interviews | 10 (67%) |
| Focus Groups | 3 (20%) |
| Surveys | 7 (47%) |
| Number of Study Participants | |
| 8–20 | 4 (27%) |
| 21–100 | 3 (20%) |
| 101–200 | 2 (13%) |
| 201–500 | 3 (20%) |
| 500–1332 | 3 (20%) |
| Communication Preferences | |
| Interpersonal dynamics and perceptions of quality of care | 9 (60%) |
| Language access through language-concordant clinicians or interpreters | 7 (47%) |
| Clinical information provision and decision-making | 8 (53%) |
| Assessed Language Concordance in Patient-Physician Dyad | 1 (7%)* |
| Assessed Clinician Language Proficiency | 0 (0%) |
| Used a Validated Instrument ** | 7 (47%) |
| Compared Health Outcomes based on Language Preference *** | 2 (13%) |
⤉
May total to over 100% as studies could include multiple methods for data collection.
**
Validated tools used include SAPS (Short Assessment of Patient Satisfaction) Survey, IPC (Interpersonal Processes of Care) Survey, PIPC (Prenatal Interpersonal Processes of Care) Survey, and CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey. One study adapted interview questions from Tandon et al study findings, another from Bergman et al study findings.
***
Hessol et al assessed differences in cesarean birth rates and Jimenez et al assessed differences in adequate pain control based on patient preferred language (Spanish).