Piloting a language translation device for Mandarin-speaking patients presenting for radiotherapy treatment – assessing patient and radiation therapist perspectives

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3637590/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Piloting a language translation device for Mandarin-speaking patients presenting for radiotherapy treatment – assessing patient and radiation therapist perspectives

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3637590/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 19 Mar, 2024

Read the published version in Supportive Care in Cancer →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) cancer patients report unmet informational and emotional needs when receiving radiotherapy (RT). This feasibility study aimed to evaluate the clinical use of an instant translation device (ITD) to facilitate communication between Mandarin-speaking patients and radiation therapists (RTTs) within the Australian public RT setting. The primary aim was to assess the ability to convey information relating to daily patient care and build rapport using the device.

Methods

A single-arm prospective interventional trial was employed with patient and RTT participants. Eligible patient participants were aged 18 years or older, diagnosed with cancer, referred for RT with self-reported Mandarin as the primary language spoken at home. Patients who had previously received RT were excluded. Consenting patient participants completed a baseline assessment of health literacy (REALM-SF) and English proficiency (LexTALE). Surveys were administered to patients and consenting RTTs at the cessation of treatment, forming two distinct participant groups. Descriptive statistics were used to compare participant groups.

Results

Eleven patients and 36 RTTs were recruited to the study. Descriptive statistics demonstrated participant group agreement in conveying treatment instructions, though differing experiences were reported against general conversation. Although the reporting of technical difficulties were inconsistent, both groups recommended the application of the ITD within the RT domain.

Conclusion

This feasibility study demonstrated encouraging accounts of patients and RTTs with regard to ITD use in the context of RT treatment. Expanded, multi-institutional recruitment is required to yield statistical significance, inform the impact of the device and determine requisite training requirements.

Radiotherapy

translation

CALD

communication

cancer

patient care

Radiation therapists (RTTs) play an integral role in supporting the emotional and informational needs of cancer patients [1, 2]. Clear and consistent communication between RTTs and cancer patients ensures patients feel safe, understood, engaged, educated and informed [1, 2]. Employing a patient-centred approach to communication within the RT context can alleviate feelings of loneliness, distress, anxiety and uncertainty [1, 2]. Moreover, this fosters parity in the patient-therapist relationship, allowing patients to build rapport, trust and confidence in the RTTs [2].

Despite reported variation in information provision for RT patients broadly, literature suggests that culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) patients are profoundly disadvantaged with unmet informational needs and are often omitted from global patient satisfaction surveys [3, 4]. This is evidenced by the 2018 Australian Health Literacy Survey, which demonstrated lower social support for healthcare needs amongst Australians who spoke a language other than English at home (19%, compared with 26% of English-speaking Australians) [5]. As such, in order to facilitate a culturally safe environment, RTTs should engage in communication, build trust, increase cultural awareness and respond to the variable cultural needs of the community [6].

Nearly half of all people living in the state of Victoria, Australia (hereafter ‘Victorian’) are first-or-second-generation migrants, thus the need for culturally appropriate health service provision is ever present within the community [7]. Amongst the 263 reported non-English languages spoken by Victorians, the most common was observed to be Mandarin (3.4%) [8]. The Victorian Language Services Guidelines provide legislative framework and indications for best practice where language translation/interpretation is required across public service industries, including healthcare. However, uptake and utility within the health context is variable [9, 10]. In a bid to overcome barriers of cost and access to professional interpreter services, research suggests that modern technology may offer some respite and resolution [4].

This feasibility study builds upon the validation study conducted in 2018 that demonstrated favourable English-to-Mandarin translation for common RTT phrases, using an instant translation device (ITD) [11].

The study aim was to evaluate the clinical use of an ITD to facilitate communication between Mandarin-speaking patients and RTTs within the Australian public RT setting. Thus, the primary objective of this research was to assess the clinical application of an ITD – specifically the ability to build rapport and convey information relating to daily patient care and treatment provided by RTTs. The secondary objectives of this study were;

(1) to evaluate the suitability and acceptance of ITD use within daily RT service provision – as determined by consenting patient and RTT participants, and

(2) to establish the feasibility for scaled study across multiple RT departments.

This multi-site feasibility study was developed as a single-arm prospective interventional trial, with a target recruitment of twenty patients over an 18-month period. Institutional and academic human research ethics committee (HREC) approval was granted in August 2018, with protocol amendments authorised in October 2019 (Monash University Ref 16793; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Ref 40756). Site lead RTTs were appointed, undertook in-depth training and had a thorough understanding of the study – including the inclusion/exclusion criteria. General training regarding the study and use of the ITD was provided to all RTTs across the participating service locations.

Sampling

Screening of potential patient and RTT participants was conducted with use of the MOSAIQ® (Version 1.6, ElektaAB, Stockholm, Sweden) record and verify system, with an electronic enrolment log recorded.

Patient Participants

A referral to language services (Mandarin) for the initial radiation oncologist appointment served as a flag for possible eligibility. Potential patient participants that had presented for RT simulation were approached by RTTs that were assigned as site leads across the participating service locations, with the support of an interpreter (as required).

RTT Participants

By contrast, treating RTTs were identified as having delivered at least one fraction of RT treatment to any of the consenting patient participants throughout the study timeline.

Recruitment

Patient Participants

Patient recruitment commenced at two participating Victorian metropolitan public RT services in December 2018; expanding to a two additional metropolitan locations and one regional centre in January 2020. At the onset of COVID-19 restrictions across Victoria, the investigators elected to close recruitment on 31 March 2020 with 18 participants (90%) successfully recruited. The investigators determined that this would satisfy analysis, and mitigate the confounding effects of the COVID-19 patient experience.

RTT Participants

Following the initial COVID-19 lockdown period, a staff survey was administered over three weeks in July-August 2020; thus completing data collection. Due to one service location failing to recruit to the study (Metro Site D), a total of 108 RTTs across the four participating sites were identified via screening and invited to complete the survey.

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Patient Participants

Patient participants were aged 18 years or older, diagnosed with cancer, referred for RT and self-reported Mandarin as the primary language spoken at home. Patients who had previously received RT treatment were excluded from this research.

At RT simulation, eligible patients were explained the study aims, requirements and rationale; this information also provided in the patient information and consent form. RTTs advised that participation was voluntary and patients reserved the right to withdraw at any given time. Informed consent was obtained and patient participants were assigned a unique study identification number to track participation and late withdrawal. All data was otherwise de-identified.

RTT Participants

Eligible RTT participants were identified as having delivered one or more fractions (treatments) of RT to any patient participant that was enrolled in the study. RTT participants, in completing the survey, provided implied consent. Participants were assigned a unique study identification number, and de-identified by any demographical feature aside from the treatment site in which they worked. No further exclusion criteria applied.

Study Outcome Measures

Patient Participants

Health & English Literacy Assessment

At CT simulation, consenting participants completed an assessment of English proficiency (LexTALE) and health literacy (REALM-SF), in order to inform the results obtained [12, 13]. This served as a baseline measurement of each participant’s capability to communicate in English and/or understand health information. A resident interpreter (in-house or via agency) supported completion of these assessments.

Daily Log Sheet

Throughout the first day discussion conducted at the first RT treatment session, the RTT (assisted by the interpreter), demonstrated the use of the device and fielded any further questions. Thereafter, the ITD was used for daily RT treatment – including, but not limited to conversational engagement, patient identification and treatment instructions. Use of the ITD was limited to the RTT and patient participant, exclusively. A daily log sheet was completed by treating RTTs, outlining any issues encountered.

Patient Survey

A final paper-based survey was completed anonymously by the patient at the end of the treatment course (see Appendix 1). The survey was administered in Chinese Simplified, with free-text responses back-translated to English. The study team opted not for Likert responses due to limited sample size and the likelihood of statistical insignificance. Free-text responses were thought to add detail and contextualise one’s reasoning in selecting an appropriate response.

RTT Participants

Staff Survey

Following the cessation of the study, all RTT staff engaged in the clinical use of the device were invited to participate in a short survey indicating their perceptions of the ITD (see Appendix 2). This survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey, and only participating RTTs were approached. Completion of the survey implied consent to the collection and use of the de-identified responses. Both the patient and RTT surveys enquiring upon common experiences and the functionality of the device. All completed surveys were confidential and de-identified. Four questions in particular were replicated for patients and RTTs alike – representing views on the ability to convey treatment instructions, engage in conversation, prevalence of technical issues and overall satisfaction. These have been selected for inclusion within this report as they depict the key findings of the feasibility study.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis drew upon quantitative data. All data was entered into a Microsoft® Office Excel 2003 spreadsheet (Version SP3, Microsoft ® Corporation, Redmond, USA) and descriptive statistics were used for primary data analysis. Qualitative data (provided in free text responses) were used to provide additional context in the responses provided and have been incorporated into this manuscript as direct quotations.

Participant Demographics

Patient Participants

Eighteen Mandarin-speaking participants consented to the study. One participant (ORBIT 15) did not complete the baseline assessment on account of staff oversight. A total of 7 participants failed to complete the post-treatment survey for reasons ranging from misplaced forms, reluctance to participate and/or administration error. Thus, the compliance rate with respect to returned patient surveys was 61.1%.

Females (n = 13) accounted for 72.2% of participants. Patient age ranged from 46 to 85 years, with a mean age of 62.6 years. Similarly, participants ranged in Australian residency from 6 months to 32 years, with a mean of 14.6 years. 41.2% of participants have attained tertiary qualification (TAFE/University, n = 7), 52.9% high school (n = 9) and 5.9% primary school (n = 1). The most common treatment type was breast/chest irradiation (44.4%, n = 8). Fractionation ranged from 5 to 39 treatments, with a mean of 19.5 fractions (~ 4 weeks). Moreover, 50% of participants were treated at Metro Site B (n = 9), 38.8% at Metro Site A (n = 7), and 5.6% at each of Metro Site C (n = 1) and Regional Site A (n = 1), respectively. Further details are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1

Patient Demographics
Demographic	No. of Participants (n = 18) n (%)
Age Range 40–49 50–59 60–69 70+	3 (16.7%) 3 (16.7%) 7 (38.9%) 5 (27.8%)
Gender Male Female	5 (27.8%) 13 (72.2%)
Years Living in Australia 0–10 years 11–20 years 20 + years Not stated	5 (27.8%) 8 (44.4%) 4 (22.2%) 1 (5.6%)
Highest Educational Level Attained Primary School High School Tertiary (TAFE) University Not stated	1 (5.6%) 9 (50.0%) 3 (16.7%) 4 (22.2%) 1 (5.6%)
Treatment Site (Body Location) Breast / Chest Wall Brain / H&N Pelvis / Prostate Lung Gastrointestinal Tract	8 (44.4%) 4 (22.2%) 3 (16.7%) 1 (5.6%) 2 (11.1%)
No. of RT Treatments (Fractions) 0–10 fractions 11–20 fractions 20 + fractions	5 (27.8%) 7 (38.9%) 6 (33.3%)

RTT Participants

At the time of RTT survey distribution, fourteen RTTs were no longer employed at the service location or were on extended leave. Thus, 94 RTTs were eligible to complete the survey. 36 RTTs obliged, representing a response rate of 38.3%. RTTs working in metropolitan sites accounted for 80.5% (n = 29) of staff participants. A further 8.3% (n = 3) worked at Regional Site A, and 11.1% (n = 4) did not state the treatment site in which they worked. Further breakdown of patients and RTTs by their corresponding treatment location (facility) is given in Table 2.

Table 2

Patient & RTT Participants by Treatment Location
Treatment Facility	Study Participants
Treatment Facility	Patients (n = 18) n (%)	Staff (n = 36) n (%)
Metropolitan Site A	7 (38.9%)	17 (47.2%)
Metropolitan Site B	9 (50.0%)	8 (22.2%)
Metropolitan Site C	1 (5.6%)	3 (8.3%)
Metropolitan Site D	0 (0.0)%	0 (0.0%)
Multiple Metropolitan Sites	0 (0.0)%	1 (2.8%)
Regional Site A	1 (5.6%)	3 (8.3%)
Not Stated	0 (0.0)%	4 (11.1%)

English & Health Literacy Scores

The results of the REALM-SF (Health literacy) and the LexTALE (English literacy) assessments are provided in Table 3. REALM-SF results indicated a majority (52.9%, n = 9) of patients presented with a zero score, indicating a health literacy level equivalent of a Grade 3 (US educational equivalent) or below, which constitutes the lowest level of health literacy comprehension. The REALM-SF indicates that this cohort would typically benefit from oral and/or audio materials. Similarly, all patient participants scored in the lowest domain of the LexTALE assessment (CEF Level B1 & below). The description of this domain indicates an English literacy at a level of ‘lower intermediate or below’.

Table 3

Baseline Patient (REALM-SF & LexTALE) Assessments
Health Literacy (REALM-SF) Results
School Grade Range	Grade Description	REALM-SF Score	Patients (n = 17) n (%)
Year 9 or greater (Secondary)	Will be able to read most patient education materials	7	2 (12%)
Year 7–8 (Secondary)	Will struggle with most patient education materials - will not be offended by low-literacy materials	4 to 6	2 (12%)
Grade 4–6 (Primary)	Will need low-literacy materials - may not be able to read prescription labels	1 to 3	4 (24%)
Grade 3 or lower (Primary)	Will not be able to read most low-literacy materials - may benefit from repeated oral instructions, or materials comprised of illustrations, audio and/or video	0	9 (53%)
English Literacy (LexTALE) Results
Common European Framework (CEF) Level	CEF Description	LexTALE Score	Patients (n = 17) n (%)
C1 & C2	Upper & lower advanced/proficient	80–100%	0 (0%)
B2	Upper intermediate	60–79%	0 (0%)
B1 & below	Lower intermediate & below	below 59%	17 (100%)

Use of the ITD to Convey Treatment Instructions

Both patients and RTTs reported affirmative results in the ability to convey and/or receive treatment instructions (see Fig. 1). 72.7% (n = 8) of patients and 61.1% (n = 22) of RTTs agreed that the ITD proved to be a reliable means of communicating critical treatment instructions to the patient to facilitate more effective daily treatment. Free text responses provided by RTTs suggested that the device was particularly useful in this setting – most notably with simple instructions, including directives for patient positioning. This is evidenced in comments provided by one RTT participant;

“I felt this was the best use for the device. In conjunction with hand gestures, the patient was able to quickly understand what we were saying”. (STAFF09)

Use of the ITD to Facilitate Conversational Language

There was a considerable disagreement of views from RTTs and patients when contemplating the role of an ITD in facilitating general conversation (see Fig. 2). 45.5% of patients (n = 5) felt that the ITD supported conversational communication, whereas the leading response of RTTs (41.7%, n = 15) was contrary to this notion. Akin to the points raised above, RTTs felt that the device was more appropriately used in providing instructions to the patient;

“RTTs tended to use it more for getting important information across, rather than small talk”. (STAFF08)

Prevalence of Technical Issues

Regarding the frequency of technical problems, differing opinions were observed between patients and RTTs. Figure 3 shows a strong inclination towards RTTs encountering technical issues (63.9%, n = 23). On the other hand, the patient data distributed across 'yes', 'no', and 'unsure' categories underlines significant inconsistency and uncertainty within this group. Where indicated, the majority of RTTs and patients reported “connectivity issues” (ORBIT14) as the most common concern.

Overall Satisfaction

Finally, the study results demonstrated parity in patient and RTT survey responses when asked if they would recommend the use of an ITD as part of daily RT treatment. As per Fig. 4, 72.7% (n = 8) of patients, and 61.1% (n = 22) of RTTs, respectively, deemed that they would recommend the device. Qualitative feedback suggested;

“using the device didn’t make the treatment feel ‘mechanical’”. (ORBIT14),

“it is helpful for those who do not speak English well”. (ORBIT01), and

“very practical”. (STAFF14)

This feasibility study sought to facilitate daily engagement between Mandarin-speaking patients and RTTs with use of an ITD. Critical to the evaluation was the assessment of clinical application – specifically the extent to which the ITD facilitated information provision and the ability to build rapport. The investigators utilised patient and RTT surveys to elicit perspectives on the suitability and acceptance of ITD use within daily RT service provision, and viability for study expansion.

Information Provision & Building Rapport

This feasibility study demonstrated that a majority of patients and RTTs saw use for the ITD in conveying treatment instructions and information. An inability to communicate critical information between a health provider and a CALD cancer patient may otherwise limit active engagement, decision-making and compliance throughout treatment [10, 14–18]. Supporting literature raises concern for the provision of information where there is an absence of a mutual language [10, 14–16].

In the RT context, treatment instructions may vary from ensuring patient preparedness in advance of attending for treatment (i.e. bladder filling, voiding bowel, pre-medication requirements, etc.) to in-room treatment positioning requirements. Broader RTT information may encompass treatment scheduling, side-effect management and self-care advice [19].

However, a disparity existed when patients and RTTs responded to the role the ITD played in facilitating informal conversation. Patient participants reported the device capable of striking a balance between information provision and building rapport. RTTs however, saw less value in the use of the ITD for engaging in ‘small talk’. Current literature reports a clear desire for CALD cancer patients to build trust and rapport with treating health providers, rather than merely facilitate a transactional engagement [17, 18]. This is best captured by Butow et al (2011), who compare standard service provision to ‘… like being in a bubble, able to see, but unable to communicate with the outside world’ [17]. It is understood that improved engagement will help to address unmet emotional, coping and support needs of CALD cancer patients [10, 16, 18]. Thus, it may be reasonable to associate the perceived value of the ITD in facilitating general conversation as relative to the disparate baseline (common) experience of healthcare by patient and staff participants, respectively.

Suitability & Acceptance of ITD Use

This study revealed a higher rate of reported technical issues experienced by RTTs, as opposed to patients. Given RTTs facilitated the use of the device, these issues may not have been evident to the patient, should the device have been withdrawn from daily use, or rectified prior to clinical use. Signal drop out was commonly reported – addressed in part with a substitution from Wi-Fi to SIM connectivity. However, the nature and design of the bunker environment will continue to be a challenge for communications technology. As the study advanced, the use of SIM-card connectivity increased in an effort to mitigate these issues, rather than relying on the hospital's Wi-Fi.

In light of reported informal use of machine translation technology in the clinical domain, this study sought to determine clinical suitability and acceptance by patients and RTTs alike [10]. Prior research completed by the investigators had demonstrated confidence in the output accuracy for English to Mandarin translations and appropriateness with respect to technology and infection control protocols within the Victorian public RT service [11].

Despite varying perceptions of patients and RTTs on the scope of use and prevalence of technical issues, the use of the ITD within clinical practice was largely considered a positive addition to RT treatment provision.

Study Limitations & Recommendations

In March 2020, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic drastically altered the provision of healthcare within Victoria [20–23]. To ensure public safety, restrictions were imposed on visitations, travel, contact time and research activity across Victorian RT services [21, 22]. With concern for the timeliness of a return to usual care provision, the investigators elected to cease recruitment to the study with eighteen patient participants (90% of target).

Considering the current study recruitment, there is merit in expanding this research to draw upon a larger sample size of patients. This would allow for meaningful multi-variate analysis, such as the correlation of demographical features, health/English literacy and frequency of device use to overall patient experience and satisfaction. Study design should seek to consider the impact of the device on patient care, treatment outcomes and service delivery. Furthermore, scaled implementation of the current study design would present opportunity to evaluate and inform the requisite training and educational requirements for broad adoption.

This feasibility study sought to compare and contrast the perceptions of Mandarin-speaking patients and RTT participants, engaged with the use of an ITD for daily RT treatment. The outcomes indicated efficacy in communicating treatment instructions, but conflicting experiences when used to engage in everyday conversation. Moreover, while technical problems were reported unevenly, both patients and RTTs endorsed the use of the ITD within the RT setting.

This study demonstrated viability of the ITD within the context of the RT department. However, implementation was limited to a single public service within the state of Victoria. As such, study expansion would be required to satisfy statistical measures and inform both the impact of the device and requisite training requirements across multiple organisations/jurisdictions.

Funding

This work was financially supported by a grant received by the Victorian Medical Radiation Practitioners Education Trust (October 2017).

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Darren Hunter and Nicola Treffry. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Darren Hunter and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics Approval

This study was performed in alignment with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committees of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (LNR/18/PMCC/115, 40756, 2018) and Monash University (16793, 2018).

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to Publish

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the study results.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the Victorian Medical Radiation Practitioners Education Trust (VMRPET) for financial support of this research, as per award of the 2017 grant. Furthermore, the authors would like to extend their gratitude to Prof Michal Schneider, who contributed to the early development of this research program and Ms Shohani Douglas, who provided invaluable support to the coordination of this research.

Egestad H (2013) How does the radiation therapist affect the cancer patients’ experience of the radiation treatment? Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 22:580–588. Doi: 10.1111/ecc.12062
Bolderstone A (2016) Patient experience in medical imaging and radiation therapy. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 47:356–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2016.09.002
Soo J, Chu C, French J (2013) Evaluation of patient satisfaction: Radiation therapy services for Chinese patients at the British Columbia Cancer Agency – Vancouver Centre. J Radiother Pract 12:124–138. Doi: 10.1017/S1460396912000039
Choi P, Szumacher E, Adams L, Hayter C, Danjoux C (2006) Are we addressing patients’ needs in radiation oncology practice? Results of patients’ satisfaction pilot survey. Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology 37(3):7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0820-5930(09)60095-5
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2019) National Health Survey: Health Literacy. Canberra, Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/national-health-survey-health-literacy/2018. Accessed 08 May 2023.
Henderson S, Kendall E (2011) Culturally and linguistically diverse peoples’ knowledge of accessibility and utilization of health services: exploring the need for improvement in health service delivery. Aust J Prim Health 17:195–201. Doi: 10.1071/PY10065
Victorian Government Department of Health & Human Services (2020) Victorian cancer plan 2020–2024. Melbourne, Australia. https://www.health.vic.gov.au/health-strategies/victorian-cancer-plan. Accessed 08 May 2023.
State Government of Victoria (2022) Discover Victoria’s diverse population. Melbourne, Australia. https://www.vic.gov.au/discover-victorias-diverse-population. Accessed 12 May 2023.
White J, Plompen T, Osadnik C, Tao L, Micallef E, Haines T (2018) The experience of interpreter access and language discordant clinical encounters in Australian health care: a mixed methods exploration. Int J Equity Health 17:151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0865-2
Shaw JM, Shepherd HL, Durcinoska I, Butow PN, Liauw W, Goldstein D, et al (2016) It’s all good on the surface: care coordination experiences of migrant cancer patients in Australia. Support Care Cancer 24:2403–2410. Doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-3043-8
Hunter D, Oates R, Anderson N, Kok D, Sapkaroski D, Wright C (2023) Validation testing of a language translation device for suitability in assisting Australian radiation therapists to communicate with Mandarin-speaking patients. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol 23:100207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2023.100207
Arozullah AM, Yarnold PR, Bennett CL, Soltysik RC, Wolf MS, Ferreira RM, et al (2007) Development and validation of a short-form, rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine. Med Care 45(11), 1026–1033.
Lemhöfer K, Broersma M (2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods 44, 325–343.
Butow PN, Sze M, Dugal-Beri P, Mikhail M, Eisenbruch M, Jeffors M, et al (2011) From inside the bubble: migrants’ perceptions of communication with the cancer team. Support Care Cancer 19:281–290. Doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-0817-x
Butow PN, Bell ML, Aldridge LJ, Sze M, Eisenbruch M, Jeffors M, et al (2013) Unmet needs in immigrant cancer survivors: a cross-sectional population-based study. Support Care Cancer 21:2509–2520. Doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1819-2
Leng J, Lee T, Sarpel U, Lau J, Li Y, Cheng C, et al (2012) identifying the informational and psychosocial need of Chinese immigrant cancer patients: a focus group study. Support Care Cancer 20:3221–3229. Doi: 10.1007/s00520-012-1464-1
Shaw J, Zou X, Butow P (2015) Treatment decision making experiences of migrant cancer patients and their families in Australia. Patient Educ Couns 98:742–747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.01/012
O’Callaghan C, Schofeld P, Butow P, Nolte L, Price M, Tsintziras S, et al (2016) “I might not have cancer if you didn’t mention it”: a qualitative study on information needed by culturally diverse cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 24:409–418. Doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2811-9
Hammick M, Featherstone C, Benrud-Larson L (2001) Information giving procedures for patients having radiotherapy: a national perspective of practice in the United Kingdom. Radiography 7:181–186. Doi: 10.1053/radi.2001.0326
Shanahan MC, Akudjedu TN (2021) Australian radiographers’ and radiation therapists’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Med Radiat Sci 68:111–120. Doi: 10.1002/jmrs.462
Edge R, Mazariego C, Li Z, Canfell K, Miller A, Koczwara B, et al (2021) Psychosocial impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients, survivors, and carers in Australia: a real-time assessment of cancer support services. Support Care Cancer 29:5463–5473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06101-3
Rykers K, Tacey M, Bowes J, Brown K, Yuen E, Wilson C, et al (2021) Victoria (Australia) radiotherapy response to working through the first and second wave of COVID-19: Strategies and staffing. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 65:374–383. Doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.13186
Anderson N, Thompson K, Andrews J, Chesson B, Cray A, Philips D, et al (2020) Planning for a pandemic: Mitigating risk to radiation therapy service delivery in the COVID-19 era. J Med Radiat Sci 67:243–248. Doi: 10.1002/jmrs.406
Statements & Declarations

No competing interests reported.

SCCArticleAppendices.docx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 19 Mar, 2024

Read the published version in Supportive Care in Cancer →

Editorial decision: Revision requested
05 Feb, 2024
Reviews received at journal
29 Jan, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
06 Jan, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
05 Jan, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
28 Dec, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
21 Nov, 2023
First submitted to journal
20 Nov, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Piloting a language translation device for Mandarin-speaking patients presenting for radiotherapy treatment – assessing patient and radiation therapist perspectives

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Sampling

Patient Participants

RTT Participants

Recruitment

Patient Participants

RTT Participants

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Patient Participants

RTT Participants

Study Outcome Measures

Patient Participants

Health & English Literacy Assessment

Daily Log Sheet

Patient Survey

RTT Participants

Staff Survey

Statistical Analysis

Results

Participant Demographics

Patient Participants

RTT Participants

English & Health Literacy Scores

Use of the ITD to Convey Treatment Instructions

Use of the ITD to Facilitate Conversational Language

Prevalence of Technical Issues

Overall Satisfaction

Discussion

Information Provision & Building Rapport

Suitability & Acceptance of ITD Use

Study Limitations & Recommendations

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1