ArticleOral oncology reports2024
Interpretation services used for non-English language speaking patients with head and neck cancer: Findings from a tertiary London cancer centre.
Article in Oral oncology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) can lead to profound changes in swallowing function and nutrition. UK HNC standards recommend informational counselling is provided pre-treatment by the dietitian and speech and language therapist (SLT). Non-english speaking patients treated in English speaking countries have poorer treatment outcomes. UK guidance recommends all patients should have access to interpretation services where required. This audit aimed to investigate the language needs and utilisation of interpretation services for patients with HNC attending pre-treatment clinics. Methods: A retrospective casenote audit over two-years (2021-2023) of all patients attending pre-treatment clinics in a centralised London cancer centre. Information was collected from electronic hospital records on demographics, disease/treatment characteristics, first language; categorised as English primary language (EPL), non-English primary language (NEPL) and interpretation requirements; formal (professional interpreters) or informal (patients friends/relatives). Data was processed and collated using Microsoft Excel (Version 2308). Descriptive statistics were conducted using Excel Analysis ToolPak. Results: 408 patients were included. Most patients were male (67%), aged 61 ± 13 years. 18% (n = 74) had NEPL; 58 required interpretation services. Formal interpretation service was provided in 43% (n = 25), informal services in 33% (n = 19), and no service in 24% (n = 14). Non-adherence to formal services included lack of/inaccurate documentation of language needs, patient preference and lack of available interpreters. Conclusion: This audit indicated that barriers exist in utilising formal interpretation services. Future research should investigate how this can be optimised to ensure necessary language support is provided consistent with guidelines that promote equality, diversity, and inclusion.
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.