Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:Language is related to culture as it both shapes and is shaped by the worldview of the people who use it (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). This implies that the language of biomedicine is relative to Western culture, and may not be directly translatable into the languages of non-Western societies. We used summaries of Cochrane Reviews (Effectiveness Update) to explore these issues, to examine the role of culture in the understanding of English research summaries for people whose first language is not English. We also explored differences in understanding between biomedical practitioners and consumers of health care.
Methods: Eleven participants, half lay people, were interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule listing key medical terms, such as "health",
"care", "cure", "harm". The terms were considered in isolation and in the context of paragraphs taken from Effectiveness Update. The interview texts were then analysed using a mixture of coding and narrative qualitative analysis methods.
Results: Many of the non-technical biomedical terms, such as "effective", "efficacy", "morbidity" and "mortality", have been imported into other languages with biomedical science. The findings also revealed clear differences in the understanding of the medical vocabulary between the medical and non-medical participants. For example, the words "effective" and "efficacy" had different meanings for the medical and non-medical participants. Several participants recommended the provision of glossaries of the medical terminology for consumers. Finally, the academic style of the writing was considered too complex and too wordy for health staff whose first language is not English.
Conclusions: This small study indicates that cultural and language differences may be important in interpreting the results of systematic reviews and other medical writing. We need to consider this more carefully, as these factors could impact on the meaning of the information to health professionals and consumers in countries where English is not widely spoken. Glossaries for consumers would be helpful, and their production could provide a forum for further debate about cultural differences in the understanding of biomedical terminology
Methods: Eleven participants, half lay people, were interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule listing key medical terms, such as "health",
"care", "cure", "harm". The terms were considered in isolation and in the context of paragraphs taken from Effectiveness Update. The interview texts were then analysed using a mixture of coding and narrative qualitative analysis methods.
Results: Many of the non-technical biomedical terms, such as "effective", "efficacy", "morbidity" and "mortality", have been imported into other languages with biomedical science. The findings also revealed clear differences in the understanding of the medical vocabulary between the medical and non-medical participants. For example, the words "effective" and "efficacy" had different meanings for the medical and non-medical participants. Several participants recommended the provision of glossaries of the medical terminology for consumers. Finally, the academic style of the writing was considered too complex and too wordy for health staff whose first language is not English.
Conclusions: This small study indicates that cultural and language differences may be important in interpreting the results of systematic reviews and other medical writing. We need to consider this more carefully, as these factors could impact on the meaning of the information to health professionals and consumers in countries where English is not widely spoken. Glossaries for consumers would be helpful, and their production could provide a forum for further debate about cultural differences in the understanding of biomedical terminology