ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies2016
Practical issues in multi-lingual research.
Article in International journal of nursing studies, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How and by whom are multiple language-related issues managed in transnational qualitative research using content analysis? A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Survey research in genetic counseling.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- A qualitative study into the perceptions and needs of fathers with a migration background on parenting regarding energy balance-related behaviors.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Strategies for overcoming language barriers in research.Journal of advanced nursing · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith an increasing number of ethnic minority populations, the use of multiple languages in one research study has increased in recent years. The use of multiple languages helps increase comprehensiveness of educational materials and/or survey questionnaires, and promote ethnic minorities' participation in research. However, little has been clearly known about practical issues in using multiple languages in one research study.
objectivesThe purpose of this paper is to explore practical issues in using multiple languages in a study among diverse sub-ethnic groups of Asian American breast cancer survivors in order to propose future directions for the use of multiple languages in research projects.
methodsThroughout the research process, research team made written records of practical issues and possible reasons for the issues as they arose. Weekly group discussions among research team members were administered, and the written records of these discussions were reviewed and analyzed using the content analysis. The unit of analysis was individual words. The words in the data (memos and written records) were classified into idea categories that emerged from the coding process.
resultsThe idea categories included issues in: (a) collaborators from various sub-ethnic groups; (b) IRB protocol submissions; (c) consistencies in translation process, (d) conceptual equivalence; (e) cultural differences; (f) existing translated versions; and (g) authorship issues. Based on the issues, we made the following suggestions for multi-lingual research: (a) networking and setting multiple communication channels with potential collaborators; (b) checking the institution's IRB policies related to the use of multiple languages; (c) setting the rules and procedures for translation process; (d) checking existing different language versions of instruments; and (e) setting the rules for authorship in advance.
conclusionsThe suggestions made in this study would help the researchers be prepared in advance to deal with the challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.