Only 11 percent of LEP patients reported receiving written medication information in their preferred language

Description #

Access to language-concordant written medication information (WMI) was very low: only 11.1% of LEP patients reported receiving written medication information in their preferred language (p<.001) — far below rates of language-concordant WMI provision reported in other studies. WMI (post-visit summaries, pill-bottle labels, pharmacy information) is an adherence-supporting resource largely unavailable to LEP patients in their language.

"only 11.1% of LEP patients reported receiving WMI in their preferred languages (p<.001). This finding is much lower than rates of language concordant WMI provision to LEP populations by providers and pharmacies in other studies." (Zhang, 2018)

Methods Context #

What? #ⓘ

The observable: self-reported receipt of written medication information (WMI) in the respondent's preferred language; asked only of LEP respondents.

"written medication information (WMI) provision in respondents' preferred languages (i.e., the language the individual chose for survey administration) was also measured in our survey instrument but was only asked to the LEP respondents." (Zhang, 2018)

How? #ⓘ

A survey item asked LEP respondents whether they received written medication information in their preferred language; the proportion answering yes was reported (descriptive, weighted).

"In addition, from the survey data... We used non-response weighting to account partially for missing survey data." (Zhang, 2018)

Who? #ⓘ

The LEP subset (n=328) of the 509 Group Health chronically ill adults across five non-English language groups.

"All LEP patients meeting the eligibility criteria were invited to participate in the study." (Zhang, 2018)

Other Notes #

The authors flag this low WMI rate as "a source of concern" that heightens the importance of verbal medication information for LEP patients.

Caveats #

• Self-reported VMI and a non-validated MUSE scale in other languages weaken the self-efficacy findings Receipt of verbal medication information was self-reported (recall bias) and does not confirm what providers actually delivered. The cross-sectional design precludes causal inference, and the MUSE self-efficacy scale was validated only in English speakers — not in the non-English languages surveyed — so cross-language score comparisons are uncertain. The authors also note it is unknown whether MUSE differences map to clinically significant adherence outcomes.