The Experiences of Families of Hospitalized Children Who Use Languages Other Than English
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Patients who use a language other than English (LOE) for health care communication are at increased risk of experiencing adverse events and worse outcomes. The objectives of this research are (1) to understand the lived experience of families who speak LOEs around the hospitalization of their child and (2) to understand the perspectives of patients and families who speak LOEs on opportunities to improve their experiences during hospitalization. METHODS: This study is grounded in patient- and family-informed research. We designed a qualitative study involving children hospitalized in the general pediatric inpatient unit at a Canadian children's hospital. We conducted semistructured individual interviews with children and families with a medical interpreter. We used thematic analysis, and all interviews were coded by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: A total 20 families of 16 different languages participated in the interviews. Themes important to understanding their lived experience were the following: (1) communication uncertainty-families experienced inconsistent interpreter use and availability, which affected in-the-moment communication and families' ability to understand the overall clinical context, leading to increased uncertainty; (2) lack of belonging-despite communicating that they had positive experiences in the hospital, families described a lack of belonging and felt that they were "other" during hospitalization; (3) altered trust-in addition to language, each patient/family's unique and complex social contexts contribute to developing an altered trust relationship with the health system that impacts their engagement in care processes. Families described opportunities for improvement such as supporting patient-initiated interpretation, increasing workforce diversity, and tailoring concepts such as shared decision making to their realities. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and families also revealed that they experience communication uncertainty, altered trust, and a lack of belonging within the hospital setting. Our research builds on the current literature and serves to advance our efforts to address health inequities experienced by this population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».