Trial reportApplied nursing research : ANR2017
The use of multiple languages in a technology-based intervention study: A discussion paper.
Trial report in Applied nursing research : ANR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multi-language qualitative study of limited English proficiency patient experiences in the United States.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Review
- Mobile health applications for the care of patients with breast cancer: A scoping review.International journal of nursing sciences · 2021Article
- A technology-based information and coaching/support program and self-efficacy of Asian American breast cancer survivors.Research in nursing & health · 2021Article
- Strategies for overcoming language barriers in research.Journal of advanced nursing · 2020Article
- What to Consider in a Culturally Tailored Technology-Based Intervention?Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN · 2018Article
- Practical Issues in a Culturally Tailored Technology-Based Intervention for Asian American Colorectal Cancer Survivors.Cancer nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesWith an increasing number of racial/ethnic minorities in the U.S., nursing research frequently involves the use of multiple languages, especially to promote the understanding of educational materials related to nursing care. Furthermore, with a recent emphasis on innovation in health-related research, the use of technology is prominent in nursing research. However, practical issues in the use of multiple languages, especially in technology-based intervention studies, have rarely been reported and/or discussed in nursing literature. The purpose of this paper is to identify practical issues in conducting a technology-based intervention study using multiple languages among Asian American breast cancer survivors.
methodsIn a large-scale technology-based breast cancer intervention study, research team members wrote memos on issues in translation process and plausible reasons for the issues. Then, the memos and written records were analyzed using a content analysis. By using individual words as the unit of analysis, line-by-line coding was done, and idea categories representing practical issues were extracted from the codes.
resultsSix themes representing the practical issues were extracted. Issues were found in recruiting and retaining bilingual research team members; maintaining consistency in translation process; keeping cultural and conceptual equivalence; repeating IRB protocol modifications; finding and using existing translated versions; and arranging technological aspects related to electronic multiple-language versions.
conclusionThe use of multiple languages in a technology-based intervention study is feasible. However, it is necessary to effectively manage unforeseen challenges through various strategies.
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.