OBJECTIVE:To determine the effect of limited English proficiency on medical comprehension in the presence and absence of language-concordant physicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A telephone survey of 1,200 Californians was conducted in 11 languages. The survey included 4 items on medical comprehension: problems understanding a medical situation, confusion about medication use, trouble understanding labels on medication, and bad reactions to medications. Respondents were also asked about English proficiency and whether their physicians spoke their native language. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We analyzed the relationship between English proficiency and medical comprehension using multivariate logistic regression. We also performed a stratified analysis to explore the effect of physician language concordance on comprehension. Forty-nine percent of the 1,200 respondents were defined as limited English proficient (LEP). Limited English-proficient respondents were more likely than English-proficient respondents to report problems understanding a medical situation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.2/confidence interval [CI] 2.1, 4.8), trouble understanding labels (AOR 1.5/CI 1.0, 2.3), and bad reactions (AOR 2.3/CI 1.3, 4.4). Among respondents with language-concordant physicians, LEP respondents were more likely to have problems understanding a medical situation (AOR 2.2/CI 1.2, 3.9). Among those with language-discordant physicians, LEP respondents were more likely to report problems understanding a medical situation (AOR 9.4/CI 3.7, 23.8), trouble understanding labels (AOR 4.2/CI 1.7, 10.3), and bad medication reactions (AOR 4.1/CI 1.2, 14.7).CONCLUSION: Limited English proficiency is a barrier to medical comprehension and increases the risk of adverse medication reactions. Access to language-concordant physicians substantially mitigates but does not eliminate language barriers. and patient recall. 32The current literature, however, has been limited by recruitment in patient care settings, relatively small sample sizes, and inclusion of few languages other than Spanish. The broader impact of language barriers on patient comprehension and the associated effects of access to language-concordant physicians remain unexplored. The goal of this study was to investigate the effects of language barriers in a linguistically diverse population-based sample, determine the extent to which limited English proficiency contributes to difficulty with medical comprehension, and explore the effects of languageconcordant physicians on comprehension.

BACKGROUND: Language barriers complicate physicianpatient communication and adversely affect healthcare quality. Research suggests that physicians underuse interpreters despite evidence of benefits and even when services are readily available. The reasons underlying the underuse of interpreters are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE:To understand the decision-making process of resident physicians when communicating with patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). DESIGN:Qualitative study using in-depth interviews. PARTICIPANTS:Internal medicine resident physicians (n=20) from two urban teaching hospitals with excellent interpreter services.APPROACH: An interview guide was used to explore decision making about interpreter use.RESULTS: Four recurrent themes emerged: 1) Resident physicians recognized that they underused professional interpreters, and described this phenomenon as "getting by;" 2) Resident physicians made decisions about interpreter use by weighing the perceived value of communication in clinical decision making against their own time constraints; 3) The decision to call an interpreter could be preempted by the convenience of using family members or the resident physician's use of his/her own second language skills; 4) Resident physicians normalized the underuse of professional interpreters, despite recognition that patients with LEP are not receiving equal care. CONCLUSIONS:Although previous research has identified time constraints and lack of availability of interpreters as reasons for their underuse, our data suggest that the reasons are far more complex. Residents at the study institutions with interpreters readily available found it easier to "get by" without an interpreter, despite misgivings about negative implications for quality of care. Findings suggest that increasing interpreter use will require interventions targeted at both individual physicians and the practice environment.KEY WORDS: communication; doctor-patient relationships; physician behavior; decision making; qualitative research.

OBJECTIVETo determine whether food insecurity—the inability to reliably afford safe and nutritious food—is associated with poor glycemic control and whether this association is mediated by difficulty following a healthy diet, diabetes self-efficacy, or emotional distress related to diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe used multivariable regression models to examine the association between food insecurity and poor glycemic control using a cross-sectional survey and chart review of 711 patients with diabetes in safety net health clinics. We then examined whether difficulty following a diabetic diet, self-efficacy, or emotional distress related to diabetes mediated the relationship between food insecurity and glycemic control.RESULTSThe food insecurity prevalence in our sample was 46%. Food-insecure participants were significantly more likely than food-secure participants to have poor glycemic control, as defined by hemoglobin A1c ≥8.5% (42 vs. 33%; adjusted odds ratio 1.48 [95% CI 1.07–2.04]). Food-insecure participants were more likely to report difficulty affording a diabetic diet (64 vs. 49%, P < 0.001). They also reported lower diabetes-specific self-efficacy (P < 0.001) and higher emotional distress related to diabetes (P < 0.001). Difficulty following a healthy diet and emotional distress partially mediated the association between food insecurity and glycemic control.CONCLUSIONSFood insecurity is an independent risk factor for poor glycemic control in the safety net setting. This risk may be partially attributable to increased difficulty following a diabetes-appropriate diet and increased emotional distress regarding capacity for successful diabetes self-management. Screening patients with diabetes for food insecurity may be appropriate, particularly in the safety net setting.

Background Patient understanding in clinical informed consent is often poor. Little is known about the effectiveness of interventions to improve comprehension or the extent to which such interventions address different elements of understanding in informed consent. Purpose To systematically review communication interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures. Data Sources A systematic literature search of English-language articles in MEDLINE (1949–2008) and EMBASE (1974–2008) was performed. In addition, a published bibliography of empirical research on informed consent and the reference lists of all eligible studies were reviewed. Study Selection Randomized controlled trials and controlled trials with non-random allocation were included if they compared comprehension in informed consent for a medical or surgical procedure. Only studies that used a quantitative, objective measure of understanding were included. All studies addressed informed consent for a needed or recommended procedure in actual patients. Data Extraction Reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized form. All results were compared, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data Synthesis Forty-four studies were eligible. Intervention categories included written information, audiovisual/multimedia, extended discussions, and test/feedback techniques. The majority of studies assessed patient understanding of procedural risks; other elements included benefits, alternatives, and general knowledge about the procedure. Only 6 of 44 studies assessed all 4 elements of understanding. Interventions were generally effective in improving patient comprehension, especially regarding risks and general knowledge. Limitations Many studies failed to include adequate description of the study population, and outcome measures varied widely. Conclusions A wide range of communication interventions improve comprehension in clinical informed consent. Decisions to enhance informed consent should consider the importance of different elements of understanding, beyond procedural risks, as well as feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to clinicians and patients. Conceptual clarity regarding the key elements of informed consent knowledge will help to focus improvements and standardize evaluations.