ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Lost in translation: advancing intervention adaptation for populations with non-dominant language preference in high diversity settings.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adapting a Complex Health Intervention Guided by the Core Functions and Form Model: A Methodology and Case Example of Participatory Adaptation.Research square · 2026Article
- Adapting a complex health intervention guided by the core functions and forms model: a methodology and case example of participatory adaptation.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- When behavior outweighs infrastructure: disinfectant and latex exposure and preventive practice among operating room nurses in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Adaptation and validation of the cancer awareness measure tool for individuals with intellectual disabilities in Hungary.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Predictors of Filipino Life Satisfaction Using the Revised Filipino Satisfaction With Life Scale.Nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As the population of individuals with non-dominant language preference (NDLP) continues to grow, the field of implementation science has yet to fully address the unique barriers that this population faces in accessing evidence-based interventions (EBIs). Traditional models of cultural adaptation have been designed primarily for single linguistic or ethnic groups, focusing on aligning interventions with specific cultural values, beliefs, and practices. While effective within narrowly defined populations, this approach is not scalable to high-diversity settings where multiple NDLP groups are served simultaneously. In this Commentary, we argue for a reconceptualization of how implementation science approaches language barriers, advocating for all implementation efforts to consider language as a core determinant of success. We highlight how two relatively recent tools developed within implementation science-the Core Function and Form Framework and causal pathway diagrams-can advance EBI adaptation for populations with NDLP. We propose a highly scalable approach that systematically assesses the linguistic, cultural, and social needs of each individual and uses these data to guide individualized tailoring of an intervention, building on the emerging model of "personalized adaptation." We highlight the need to innovate methods to ensure an individualized approach to EBI adaptation is feasible, scalable, and led by communities, with input from end-users. By harnessing the wisdom of the fields of implementation science and cultural adaptation, interventions can be adapted to the linguistic, cultural, and social needs of populations with NDLP to bring us closer to health equity in a diverse world.
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.