↓ Skip to main content

Implementing guidelines and training initiatives to improve cross-cultural communication in primary care consultations: a qualitative participatory European study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 X users

Readers on

mendeley
242 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementing guidelines and training initiatives to improve cross-cultural communication in primary care consultations: a qualitative participatory European study
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0525-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Teunissen, K. Gravenhorst, C. Dowrick, E. Van Weel-Baumgarten, F. Van den Driessen Mareeuw, T. de Brún, N. Burns, C. Lionis, F. S. Mair, C. O’Donnell, M. O’Reilly-de Brún, M. Papadakaki, A. Saridaki, W. Spiegel, C. Van Weel, M. Van den Muijsenbergh, A. MacFarlane

Abstract

Cross-cultural communication in primary care is often difficult, leading to unsatisfactory, substandard care. Supportive evidence-based guidelines and training initiatives (G/TIs) exist to enhance cross cultural communication but their use in practice is sporadic. The objective of this paper is to elucidate how migrants and other stakeholders can adapt, introduce and evaluate such G/TIs in daily clinical practice. We undertook linked qualitative case studies to implement G/TIs focused on enhancing cross cultural communication in primary care, in five European countries. We combined Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as an analytical framework, with Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) as the research method to engage migrants, primary healthcare providers and other stakeholders. Across all five sites, 66 stakeholders participated in 62 PLA-style focus groups over a 19 month period, and took part in activities to adapt, introduce, and evaluate the G/TIs. Data, including transcripts of group meetings and researchers' fieldwork reports, were coded and thematically analysed by each team using NPT. In all settings, engaging migrants and other stakeholders was challenging but feasible. Stakeholders made significant adaptations to the G/TIs to fit their local context, for example, changing the focus of a G/TI from palliative care to mental health; or altering the target audience from General Practitioners (GPs) to the wider multidisciplinary team. They also progressed plans to deliver them in routine practice, for example liaising with GP practices regarding timing and location of training sessions and to evaluate their impact. All stakeholders reported benefits of the implemented G/TIs in daily practice. Training primary care teams (clinicians and administrators) resulted in a more tolerant attitude and more effective communication, with better focus on migrants' needs. Implementation of interpreter services was difficult mainly because of financial and other resource constraints. However, when used, migrants were more likely to trust the GP's diagnoses and GPs reported a clearer understanding of migrants' symptoms. Migrants, primary care providers and other key stakeholders can work effectively together to adapt and implement G/TIs to improve communication in cross-cultural consultations, and enhance understanding and trust between GPs and migrant patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 241 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Other 42 17%
Unknown 79 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 18%
Psychology 18 7%
Social Sciences 17 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 3%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 84 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,129,121
of 25,416,581 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#336
of 2,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,098
of 427,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#8
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,416,581 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.