Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Department of Anthropology
January, 2011
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
Ph.D.
candidate for the ______________________degree *.
Atwood Gaines
(signed)_______________________________________________
(chair of the committee)
Charlotte Ikels
________________________________________________
Eileen Anderson-Fye
________________________________________________
Joseph Sudano
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
July 8, 2010
(date) _______________________
*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any
proprietary material contained therein.
Table of Contents
3
Acknowledgments
This dissertation research spans multiple phases of my life and I would like to
express gratitude to specific individuals and groups in helping me through this process. I
am forever thankful to the People’s Clinic and the clinicians, volunteers, and patients
who allowed me access to their personal lives. I am continuously inspired by the
dedicated people who sacrifice so much to help people in need. I will always be guided
by their beliefs and actions.
The Case Western Reserve University anthropology faculty provided me with
tremendous knowledge and understanding of the cultural, political, and historical
influences on health and illness. They taught me how to think critically and holistically
about societal problems and how to contribute to finding solutions. I would like to
thank Atwood Gaines for his guidance over the years, listening to my fledgling research
ideas, and helping me flesh out a project I was passionate about. Thanks to Charlotte
Ikels and Eileen Anderson-Fye for their time, comments, and contributions to this
research. And though she is not part of my dissertation committee, Rachel Chapman
taught me the importance of witnessing, listening, and using myself not only as a
research tool but as an instrument for change.
I would also like to thank the University of North Texas anthropology
department members for their encouragement, mentorship, and camaraderie. Being
part of their anthropology community has helped me grow as a professional, academic
scholar, and applied anthropologist. In particular, Alicia Re Cruz, Shimaa Dessouky,
Grace Bascopé, Lisa Henry, and Mariela Nuñez-Janes lit a fire which sustained my
passion for research and the sometimes not so passionate writing process.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, Ann Abbe, David Abbe, Bill Harris, Donna
Abbe, and my wonderful husband, Jarrod Berger. For without their help this would have
never been possible. At an early age I learned the meaning of kindness, selflessness,
and advocacy. With these life lessons and their constant love and support, I have
completed this rite of passage. I can never thank you enough.
4
An Analysis of Cultural Competence, Cultural Difference, and
Communication Strategies in Medical Care
Abstract
By
suffer disproportionately from the burden of disease in our society, specifically in the
development of disease, health outcomes, and access to care. Even as quality improves
on specific measures, disparities often persist. A common reason cited for health
inequalities is that the U.S. health care system, in its “one-size-fits-all” approach, is
is cultural competence.
following questions: If the medical encounter provides the space for the intersection of
cultural differences, how might patients and clinicians locate such differences, how are
they talked about or negotiated between participants, and does there exist a set of
between patients and clinicians cause barriers to treatment? What other factors create
5
barriers? How do patients communicate their treatment preferences, medical beliefs,
Clinic, a free clinic in a metropolitan area in Texas. I utilized participant observation and
This research expands the knowledge of the role of culture and cultural
from their lifeworld, and whether “cultural” narratives provided by patients would
6
Chapter One: Introduction
This dissertation investigates how clinicians and patients from different linguistic
conducted at the People’s Clinic, a free clinic in a Texas metropolitan city, from July
2006 to July 2008. The research project is situated within larger discourses from
medical and social science research fields on health disparities in the US (e.g., medical
theoretical models from medical anthropology and linguistic anthropology are used in
this project, this introductory chapter is broken into four parts. First, I provide a brief
overview of the issue studied, that is, health inequalities and cultural competence. Next
I provide the medical anthropological context of this issue and review pertinent theories
about the role of culture in health, migrant and refugee health issues, the study of
biomedicine, the notions of explanatory models, illness narratives, and the views of
methodological debates. In the fourth section I narrow the focus to the medical setting
and review the literature on medical communication including the role of language in
health and the role of medical interpreters. Finally, I discuss the dissertation project and
situate the research questions among the discourses of medical and linguistic
7
I. Health Disparities and Cultural Competence
being “at risk” for illness and disease because of their cultural differences (Brach and
Fraserirector 2000; OMH 2001; Hirsch 2003). Further, recent studies conclude there are
widespread and systematic problems in our healthcare system causing health disparities
between minority and Anglo groups. ‘Health disparities’ is a phrase used by health
professions to refer to differences in morbidity, mortality, and access to health care that
appear along social, cultural, economic, gender, and especially “racial” and “ethnic”
In the U.S., health disparities are well documented in minority populations such
as African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos. When compared
to Anglo Americans, these minority groups have higher incidence of chronic diseases,
higher mortality, and poorer health outcomes. Among the disease-specific examples of
racial and ethnic disparities is the cancer incidence rate among African Americans, which
is 10% higher than among Anglo Americans (Goldberg, et al. 2004). In addition, adult
African Americans and Latinos have approximately twice the risk as developing diabetes.
According to a national survey, Mexican Americans have higher rates of end-stage renal
disease, caused by diabetes, and they are 50% more likely to die from type II diabetes
than Anglo Americans. 1 Minority groups also have higher rates of heart disease,
HIV/AIDS, and infant mortality than Anglo Americans (Goldberg, et al. 2004).
1
http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=3324 accessed 3/2010
8
The socio-economic status model, or the idea that wealth equals health,
influences most minority health research (Hayes-Bautista 2002). This theory contends
that the greater likelihood of living in poverty places groups like Latinos at increased risk
of disease and disability because poverty is highly linked with residing in resource-poor
2001). According to the 2000 U.S. census, 24% of Mexican Americans live below poverty
Latino populations are placed at even greater risk compared to other immigrant
groups because of the high percentage who work in hazardous jobs, are undocumented,
and lack health insurance (Chavez, et al. 1992; Carrillo, et al.2001). However, some
studies have shown that even with insurance and access to health services, both
immigrant and non-immigrant Latinos underutilize health and mental health care (Vega,
et al. 2001).
Aside from the moral argument for ending health inequalities, a recent study
concluded that between 2003 and 2006, the combined costs of health inequalities and
premature death in the United States were $1.24 trillion and that eliminating health
disparities for minorities would have reduced direct medical care expenditures by
A common reason cited for underutilization is that the U.S. health care system,
in its “one-size-fits-all” approach, is inadequate to meet the needs of Latinos (Vega and
2
http://www.jointcenter.org/hpi/sites/all/files/Burden_Of_Health_FINAL_0.pdf
9
Alegría 2001; Putsch 2002). The proposed solution in current medical discourse is
culturally aware and competent medicine. Anthropologists have advocated for a more
culturally aware biomedicine since the 1950’s (Foster 1953). However, as cultural
the issue.
A review of the recent medical literature shows that the concern with delivery
and linguistic barriers and increases certain patient outcomes, such as patient
cultural differences between patients and the health care system. Linguistic
(Brach and Fraserirector 2000). Linguistic competence occurs at two levels, the
institutional and individual. Institutions can provide language specific written materials
such as patient sign-in and billing documents, posted signs, and education pamphlets;
clinicians can ensure competence if they are bilingual or use medically trained
10
The consequences of linguistic barriers have been well documented in the
literature. There are examples of medical encounters where interpreters and clinicians
to both the patient and clinician. Likewise, the literature contains examples of patient
visits where interpreters were not accurate, or did not fully translate the information
provided to both the patient and clinician; in some cases serious medical errors
resulted. These errors were more likely to occur when the interpreter was a friend or
al. 2001; Flores, et al. 2003). Studies that link language barriers with repeat
visits, longer hospital stays, and patient misunderstanding and dissatisfaction help to
highlight the importance of linguistic competence (Baker, et al. 1998; OMH 2001; Putsch
2002).
care encounters have been presumed to include the following (Chavez, et al. 1995;
(1) differences concerning how patients and clinicians act in a biomedical setting
(including both verbal and non-verbal behaviors, gestures, and procedures) and
differences regarding how clinicians and patients are expected to perform their
respective duties/roles;
(2) differences in certain cultural assumptions of respect, trust, patient autonomy, and
informed consent; and
(3) differences with respect to the patient’s and clinician’s explanatory models (the
etiology, treatment, and outcome) of the illness.
11
There is an inherent problematic notion of culture in cultural competence
models for anthropologists and others who do not hold a reductionist or static view of
culture. While cultural sensitivity and awareness are not new ideas in medicine, they
phenomenon to frame cultural and linguistic differences in terms of how they constitute
“barriers” to the delivery of health care. 3 Hence cultural and linguistic differences of the
patient, and not necessarily the culture of the medical provider and institution, become
incorporated into the medical model as negatively impacting health care, i.e., posing a
“barrier” (Santiago-Irizarry 2001). With the uncritical and increasing use of the term
“barrier” we are led to believe that the patient’s culture is so problematically different
Despite the increased attention to the need for cultural competence, several
as well as in the social sciences. To begin, there is a failure to provide a consistent and
competencies lead to proficient practices by clinicians and institutions has not been
practitioners are unsure about how to apply written policies to service delivery. Third,
3
For example, the Office of Minority Health’s (OMH) main website states that they were mandated by the
US. Congress in 1994 to, “develop the capacity of health care professionals to address the cultural and
linguistic barriers to health care delivery.” Barrier is also the designated term in the OMH’s National
Standards on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (better known as the CLAS Standards), the
standard most often used in research and in medical school training.
12
there is a lack of critical questioning of basic assumptions about the role and effect of
cultural differences; for example, statements such as, “all professionals who interact
services” (Arellano 2004: 10) assumes that only minority clients possess a type of culture
treatment.
A fourth critique is that few studies exist which explicitly investigate how
effectiveness of services by the target populations (Beach, et al. 2005). In fact, one
review article highlights a lack of research on the techniques and behaviors of cultural
whether or not cultural and linguistic competence in medicine could reduce racial and
economic causes of limited access and ill health. In fact, accompanying the cultural
competence movement is an explicit shift away from a focus on the role of poverty,
health insurance and access, discrimination, and hazardous jobs in the development of
ill health and disease to an analysis of the role of cultural difference (Hirsch 2003; Shaw
2005).
differences may negatively impact the diagnosis or treatment of an illness are very
scarce, and are even more so in the mental health field. When might a cultural issue
13
become a “barrier” and do cultural differences exist which do not evolve into barriers
(e.g., Jenkins, et al. 1996)? Are cultural barriers fundamentally different from other
And to question the model further, does the narrow focus on cultural difference result
understanding of illness and disease in terms of their culture and ethnic identity? If the
medical encounter provides the space for the intersection of cultural differences in
health care, how might patients and clinicians locate them, how are they talked about
or negotiated between participants, and does there exist a set of strategies that
Without clear answers to these questions, many argue that there is little
(Brach and Fraserirector 2000; Hirsch 2003). As extensive efforts are underway to
create enforceable national standards for cultural competence, I believe we must take a
step back to identify both how culture plays a role in health care treatment and delivery
and how other issues such as poverty and class fit into a cultural competence model.
Cultural competence definitions and theoretical models will be more explicitly discussed
in Chapter three.
The research discussed in this work is drawn largely from Medical Anthropology.
From this field I utilize theories on Mexican ethnomedical systems, the role of culture in
14
health, conceptualizations of migrant and refugee health, explanatory models, illness
customs, healing beliefs and practices, and ethnomedicines (for example, Rubel 1960;
Kiev 1968; Ingham 1970; Clark 1970; Garro 1986; Foster 1994; Finkler 2004). The early
work of George Foster (1953), Rubel (1960), Clark (1970) and others moved
medicine and low health care utilization rates among immigrants and minorities (Paul
1963; Browner 1994). These studies are particularly pertinent today because
immigrants bring with them culturally-specific beliefs, assumptions, and values which
may not correspond with biomedicine, including procedural differences of accessing and
navigating the health care system and the cultural/social knowledge of how to act like a
For example, Finkler (2004) described the Mexican medical system as a mix of
biomedicine and alternative healing systems, including professional and folk (e.g.,
homeopathy, acupuncture, and curanderos). Finkler found that clinicians at one urban
traditional folk concepts such as nervios, anger, and susto as well as environmental and
social causes. However, their medical training required them to reduce the folk
15
concepts to a diagnosis of disease categories. So while the common folk category of
nerves was widely accepted by clinicians, “they reduced “nerves” to an organic disorder
cold dichotomous system. Foster (1994) traced the roots of Latin American humoral
medicine back to three ethnomedicines that rely on basic binary oppositions: Greek
humoral medicine from approximately the sixth century BC to 400 BC, Indian Ayurvedic
medicine dating from the first, forth, and seventh century AD (from classic Ayurvedic
humoral medicine as surviving in Sanskrit documents, the Caraka Samhita, the Susruta
Samhita and the Vagbhata), and Chinese humoral medicine dating from the fifth
century BC. Humoral principles work to maintain the body’s equilibrium based on
metaphorical and thermal hot and cold qualities within food, outside and inside
temperature, and a balance of emotions. Foster (1994) contended that in the Mexican
system, all foods, herbs, and some other substances (such as iron) have a temperate as
well as metaphoric value of “hot” and “cold.” An upset to the body’s equilibrium can
cause, or make a person more susceptible, to illness. Therapies for the most part tend
to conform to the “principle of opposites” so that a cold remedy works best for a hot
Although all ethnomedical systems are dynamic and changing, it is clear that
Latino immigrants still believe in the importance of this classificatory system to provide
a basis for the explanation of illness. Throughout his decades of research in Mexico,
Foster (1994) demonstrated that despite the dominance of Western medicine, millions
16
of people at some level continue to subscribe to a humoral belief system and engage in
practices based upon it. Clark (1970) also explained that her second generation
disease and one-third were able to classify hot and cold foods, dispelling the myth that
Anthropologists have also written about the “new immigration” patterns and
how processes like globalization have destabilized local economies and altered
migration patterns. Scholars have argued that Latinos, for example, are entering the
U.S. because American culture has permeated their own: “With TV shows, soldiers, and
political ideals, the United States has reached out and touched people across an entire
According to the 2000 census, there were roughly 281 million people living in the
U.S. with 31 million people born outside the country. The sheer size of the immigrant
population and the radical shift in the sources of immigration have led some scholars to
claim that this current wave of migration is unlike any we have seen before in this
What is new about this wave is not only is the volume, but also the geographical make
up of immigrants. Until the middle of the 20th century, immigrants were mostly
European whereas today, more than 50% of immigrants are from Latin America and 25%
17
New immigration scholars recognize that the portrayal of “Latinos” as a unified
group in some research, policy publications, and discussions is misleading; using a pan-
ethnic label such as “Latino” glosses over the contradictions and tensions around class,
race, and color that separate the individuals which are included en mass in the label.
Why certain populations migrated to the U.S., when they migrated, and what they are
migrating to cannot be captured in the “Latino” label. For example, the first migratory
wave of Cubans fleeing from Communism to the U.S. in the 1950’s were welcomed and
benefited tremendously from substantial governmental aid, whereas today, Cubans are
turned away and deported (Suro 1998). To treat all Cuban immigrants alike, much less
differentials. For example, the majority of uneducated immigrants find work in the low-
wage, low-skilled, secondary sector, which limits access to health care, upward mobility,
and financial stability (Suárez-Orozco 2003). There is evidence that the “economic step-
ladder” of the 1950’s, where subsequent generations of migrants steadily gain higher
paying jobs and education levels, is not available today (Suro 1998; Magaña and Hovey
2003). Additionally, while the children and grandchildren of the 19th century European
immigrants have arrived only to find the U.S. education system dangerously in disrepair
(Suárez-Orozco 2001).
4
I will use the term “Latino” when discussing other research that is not specific about which cultural or
ethnic groups were surveyed. The research participants in this study were primarily Mexican immigrants.
18
Medical anthropology research indicates that new immigrants, in particular
Latino immigrants, have high rates of depression, anxiety, occupational diseases, and
chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease linked to acculturative and
environmental stressors (Padilla, et al. 1998; Carter-Pokras and Zambrana 2001; Portes
with some interest in reducing disease, disability, and human suffering, and
international health and public health measures (Paul 1955, 1963; Browner, et al. 1988;
Sobo 2009). Benjamin Paul, an early founder of medical anthropology, specified two
kinds of medical anthropologists in the 1950’s and 60’s: “those who investigate cultural
components in the etiology and incidence of illness and those who analyze popular
and community/social wellbeing (Sobo 2009). This concept worked better than the
(Kleinman 1980).
19
With a new climate and radical cultural changes in the U.S. during the 1960’s and
70’s, anthropology and medicine changed as well and the research that ensued
strengthened the interdisciplinary bonds between them. The very concept of “culture”
and what was considered “objective” and “scientific” in anthropology was changing (see
Geertz 1973; Clifford and Marcus 1986). A growing number of symbolic anthropologists
adopted new methods suited to the study of meaning and began to advocate for
Victor Turner (1967, 1969) and Clifford Geertz (1984, 1973) who incorporated
and Schutz’s papers on social reality (1962), anthropologists formulated theories about
everyday activities and experiences for examining organized, reflexive, accountable, and
culture-bound syndromes and with these, new methods merged interpretive and
symbolic analysis for cross-cultural research in religion and psychology (Good and Good
1982). When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and
20
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1952, ethnopsychiatrists began a
Studies used Western standards of comparison that explicitly stated that “we have
‘psychiatry’, they have ‘ethnopsychiatry;’ our diagnostic categories are ‘real’, theirs are
‘folk’ or ‘culture-bound’” (Gaines n.d.: 15; e.g., Yap 1951; Devereux 1961; Kiev 1964;
Murphy 1971). The comparative studies highlighted the role of culture and cultural
Anthropologists, and especially cultural relativists, reproved the role that culture
confusing series of cultural and idiosyncratic layers which had to be picked away in
diagnosis to reveal the “real” disease. As Geertz facetiously stated, “culture is icing,
anthropologists recognized the local nature and meaning of illness and pushed forward
the agenda that culture matters at every level of the illness experience: in the processes
One theoretical outgrowth of this push was the Explanatory Model (EM). EMs
are cognitive models about a specific illness and include ideas about how illness is
defined, what personal and community meaning it has, patterns of treatment resort,
and how treatment is evaluated (Kleinman 1978; Katon and Kleinman 1980). Medical
21
anthropologist Arthur Kleinman formulated an experience-near theory about EMs from
his struggle to explain how differing concepts of disease and illness held by patients and
(1978) suggested that these models be elicited from individual patients, families, and
process of negotiation and treatment. Implicit within this model was a deep concern for
understanding the experience and social world that lies within an illnesses as well as
Study of Biomedicine
Despite some anthropologists who felt that medical critiques were generally not
appropriate for the field, medical anthropologists enlarged their scope away from their
strict focus on psychiatry to study Western medicine writ large (Gaines 1992b; see
Kleinman 1978; Gaines 1982a; Engel 1984). Medical anthropologists emphasized that
Littlewood 1990; Stigler, et al. 1990). Medical anthropologists like Byron Good, Elliot
Mishler, Atwood Gaines, and Arthur Kleinman came to view biomedicine, like all
For example, Good and Good (1993) critically examined the way in which
medical gaze (see also Good 1994). Social psychiatrist Elliot Mishler (1981)
felt that as biomedicine adhered to the doctrine of specific etiology that was derived
22
from L. Pasteur’s germ theory, each disease is expected to have a specific genesis or
cause. But underlying the cause and effect model is a process by which disease is
constructed rather than found. The confusion around diagnosis is that too often
clinicians and researchers have confused the concept of disease (an explanatory model)
with a rigid notion of what reality is, thereby reifying the notion of diseases as real
gaze on medical systems, Gaines (1992a) offered a cultural constructivism model that
outlined the manner in which biomedicine and all professional medical systems become
culturally constructed. The field of medicine itself is a culturally constructed entity with
its own distinct rituals and ways of seeing the world (Hahn and Gaines 1985; Gaines
patient’s experience and explanatory models were just as important as the physical
symptoms of the illness, was not seen as particularly important in biomedicine because
of the way that discipline was constructed and taught. As mentioned earlier, central to
biomedicine is the idea of a single causal agent of illness that is “discovered” through
was a large impetus in the development of certain pharmaceutical drugs in the 1930’s
and 40’s, namely synthetic sulfa antibiotics and penicillin. These discoveries
23
(Finkelstein and Temin 2008:22). This pharmaceutical revolution led medicine to the
The birth of the biomedical model of disease as such left out the patient’s
experience of illness as it sharpened the medical gaze (Foucault 1973). The medical
gaze effectively reifies what is subjective to the patient into something objective for the
doctor (Taussig 1980). Not only does the person transform more and more into the
disease he or she is diagnosed with (e.g., “a schizophrenic” and not a person suffering
from schizophrenia), but the person takes on the “sick role” and becomes a “patient,”
with specific patient duties and linguistic roles to perform (Parsons 1951; Foucault 1973;
Mauss 1996). No longer a whole person, the patient and his or her role becomes that of
information bearer and obedient follower rather than a partner in the medical process.
Thus, because biomedicine constructs disease as a bio-chemical entity, which puts the
and malady is often ignored or discounted by the clinician (Taussig 1980; Mishler 1984;
Kleinman 1995).
the general inadequacies felt by the lay U.S. population. Consistent with the
counterculture movement of the 1960’s and 70’s, there was a general dissatisfaction
amongst the general public with professional medical knowledge – it was often
paternalistic and dualistic and physicians focused heavily on the biological mechanisms
of illness and less on the social aspects (West and Frankel 1991). When medical and
linguistic anthropologists began to write about the culture of medicine in the early
24
1980’s, we received experience-near and rich productions of patient’s accounts of
health, their explanatory models of disease expressed in illness narratives, how they
interacted with the formal and informal medical systems, as well as the rites and
initiations of medical students and other clinicians (Kleinman 1980, 1988; Mishler
1984;Good 1994).
explaining their informant’s point of view. For example, Byron Good (1977) developed
the Semantic Illness Network theory which stated that illness realities were biologically
distress” in Iran, Good illustrated that meaning was constituted as coherent networks of
One way patients and clinicians provide information to one another in the
medical encounter is through storytelling and narratives (Fisher and Groce 1990). One
of the most powerful forms for expressing the patient’s explanatory model and/or life
experiences with the illness is through narratives. Narratives often give voice to
experiences that lie outside the biomedical space and are a fundamental way we create
and give meaning to our social reality (Mattingly 2000, 2008). The illness narrative or
25
story is saturated with moral, social, and cultural meaning from the patient’s lifeworld.5
“Acting like a sponge, illness soaks up personal and social significance from the world of
the sick person” – meanings from life experiences become interwoven with the long-
term experience of illness, especially chronic illness (Kleinman 1988: 31). Thus,
psychological and social aspects of the illness shape explanatory models and the
Especially for people suffering from chronic illness, stories and narratives may be
ordered, controlled, everyday life event. This excerpt from Kleinman’s Illness Narratives
“The undercurrent of chronic illness is like the volcano: it does not go away. It
menaces. It erupts. It is out of control. One damned thing follows another.
Confronting crisis is only one part of the total picture. The rest is coming to grips
with the mundaneness of worries over whether one can negotiate a curb,
tolerate flowers without wheezing, eat breakfast without vomiting,…or just plain
face up to the myriad of difficulties that make life feel burdened, uncomfortable,
and all too often desperate” (Kleinman 1988: 44).
For people with chronic illnesses, narratives and the telling of narratives may also help
shape a person’s identity, making it possible to give coherence and meaning to events
Explanatory models, as deeply rooted in emotions and cultural values, are often
difficult for patients to express, especially when they differ from others’ models, such as
5
Mishler (1984) developed the concept of the “voice of the lifeworld” as “the patient’s contextually-
grounded experiences of problems and events in her life” (104). The lifeworld contrasts with the “voice
of biomedicine” which is technical, scientific, and decontextualized.
26
the clinicians (Kleinman 1988). Not only is the illness experience culturally mediated,
but stories about illness are also told in a culturally specific and appropriate way (Garro
and Mattingly 2000). As such, social scientists are interested in not only what is said
during a narrative but the way in which it is told – the form of the narrative also conveys
information about the narrator (Hyden 1997). In medicine, narratives are seen as
something that is a distinct form of speaking, much different than what occurs during
In a health setting, this web of meanings has great significance for the health
provider and treatment of the illness. Kleinman (1988) and other medical
order to assist people in coming to terms with the personal significances of the illness
that are operating in their lives. Besides getting at the meanings of the illness,
explanatory models also allow patients and clinicians to communicate and talk about
their illness. By talking about these issues all participants can better negotiate a
treatment plan that is mutually acceptable. The medical encounter is a prime place for
such a dialogue as it sits between the patient’s lifeworld and the voice of biomedicine
(Mishler 1984; Sarangi 2004). As such, patient-centered clinicians have begun to call for
the social sciences also furthers the idea that there is a correlation between patients
27
talking about their explanatory models and patients’ satisfaction, understanding,
“compliance,” and health care utilization (Rao, et al., 2000). In fact, one study found
and clinician. Causes for the misunderstandings were that most patients had an agenda
item that they did not voice or there were inaccurate assumptions or guesses from the
care, and narrative medicine. Figure 1.1 represents Mishler’s model of the patient
lifeworld. In this model, Mishler proposed that the voice of biomedicine, which focuses
on technical concerns such as the disease process, is at odds with the voice of the
lifeworld, which focuses on patient’s experiences and feelings. Mishler (1984) argued
that the majority of medical encounters take place solely in the voice of biomedicine.
28
Figure 1.1 Misher’s Model of the Lifeworld (from Barry, et al. 2001)
Despite the benefits of having the patient tell his or her illness narrative,
researchers studying the medical encounter found that clinicians frequently opt to take
up the physical discourse of disease but do not interact with the social and cultural
meanings of the disease for the patient (Mishler 1984; Kleinman 1988; Waitzkin 1991;
Britten, et al. 2000). Symptoms are similar to other social and cultural symbols; they are
provided, read, analyzed, and interpreted both by the sufferer and their social network,
by the interpreter speaking for the patient, and by the clinician treating them. At each
29
phase and at different levels, illnesses, and talk about illnesses, are saturated with
moral, social, economic, racial, sexual or disabling meanings. Many times these
meanings, however, are not as important as the “scientific” meaning of the disease to
Consider, for example, the main format of a medical encounter. Waitzkin (1991),
a sociologist and physician, highlighted the structure of the typical visit as the elicitation
of a chief complaint by the doctor, followed by a discussion of the present malady, past
history, family history, and social history. Next, the doctor performs a physical exam
and any other necessary investigations or tests and then presents a diagnosis and
treatment plan. Medical residents are taught in medical school that eliciting the chief
complaint and present illness from the patient are considered the most important skills
But telling an illness narrative or story is not so easy for the typical patient.
Interruptions by the clinician frequently occur during the discussion of the present
illness, the phase precisely where contextual information enters the dialogue, in order
correct diagnosis is very strong in every encounter and segments of the patient story
that the doctor perceives as excessive or pointless (i.e., those that are perceived as
having nothing to do with arriving at a correct diagnosis) are ignored and more
frequently impatiently cut off (Waitzkin 1991). Mishler (1997) hypothesized that the
shape of the patient’s story, its thematic coherence, structure, and grounded ending, is
directly related to the interactive roles that the patient and doctor play out. Thus, while
30
patients may be narrating their experience from the perspective of their lifeworld,
doctors are interpreting symptoms from their technological perspective (Mishler 1984).
In a cross-cultural medical encounter, the patient story may hold important clues. How
do Mexican immigrant patients tell their story of the present illness? Are there
superfluous? As the physician’s authority over the disease increases, doctors become
the knowledge-controllers of patient health, and the transfer and loss of power over our
own bodies becomes more and more transparent (Foucault 1973). Our health and
health care have additionally become commodities in the biomedical system; doctors
are the providers, we are the consumers, and large profits are made by health insurance
reality” (Kleinman 1995: 38). Thus, because of the pressure of time, the sheer numbers
of patients doctors are expected to treat due to managed care which gives incentives for
clinicians to treat more patients with less resources, the gate-keeping function doctors
hold, and the relegation of patient experience with their illness to “soft” science,
doctors are necessarily in a position of more power over health (Dugdale, et al. 1999).
anthropology discipline believed the focus on meaning led the primary goals of the sub-
31
being so against the universalist paradigms that dominated in the early century that
they completely refused to explore the intersection between biology and culture.
“While this orientation has enriched ethnology, it has impoverished efforts to build
findings in more than one society, or test hypotheses that predict generalized
1988: 689). Hahn (1985: 570) also critiqued culturally relative interpretivists for being
“overly xenocentric” to the degree that researchers would no longer account for the
culturally relative. “…the relativist [person] views the understandings of others as self-
comparability, no common standard for rational criticism…” (Shweder and Bourne 1982:
104). Inherent tension lies within the need to establish genuine communication
between social science and biomedicine, to collect data that is truly comparable and
useful for applied work in settings like clinics, and the need to search for the specific
cultural influences created within communities and the social systems that play a
profound role in making the meaning behind the symptoms (White 1982). The goal of
medical anthropology should never be to simply discover links between culture and
biology as Browner, et al. (1988) advocated; nor should it be a pure relativistic reading
32
of health and illness. Rather, medical anthropologists should strive for a balance
between the two extremes with a focus on making our research clinically relevant.
that influence health and disease. While such structures as social class, gender, or
and disease. A CMA approach emphasizes the role of power, poverty, discrimination,
violence, and inequality in health care systems (Singer and Baer 2007).
were at odds with one another; however, the approaches are not mutually exclusive
and both inform this body of research. I see an individual patient at the clinic situated in
their specific cultures, drawing upon various ethnomedical models, and having agency in
their decision making and actions of obtaining health care. This same individual,
though, also lives within a society with highly unequal access to health care where
health care is not a right for all members. If the individual is a minority or immigrant
they are more likely to face poverty, discrimination, and disparities in health outcomes
The causes and effects of “structural violence” are often a topic of CMA
research, such as the explicit connections between history, power, poverty, inequality,
economic and social rights, and human rights abuses (Farmer 2003, 2004). “In short, the
33
concept of structural violence is intended to inform the study of the social machinery of
oppression” (Farmer 2004: 307). Structural violence is often embedded in the adverse
events of our research, events such as diseases or violations of human rights. Because
of this focus, critical medical anthropologists often call for anthropologists to clearly
groups who promote a system that enhances control on the one hand and subordinate
groups who demand care on the other” (Singer 1995: 86). While this system of
biomedicine may not be the precise reality at the People’s Clinic, where this research
takes place, because the clinicians at the free clinic were volunteers who verbalized the
effects of structural barriers on health, the clinicians there were necessarily working
Medical anthropologists also examine the way clinicians and patients, using
authoritative knowledge grew out of studies of power in medical settings (e.g., Jordan
1978, 1997; Hahn 1985). Studies suggest that patients exclude their own knowledge in
(Kingfisher and Millard 1998). Other research finds that patient knowledge is devalued
34
medical encounter, authoritative knowledge is not “true” or “correct” in any “objective”
individuals. But as a social and cultural institution, biomedicine and medical encounters
are influenced by and reflect broader macro-level social ideologies, including dominant
ideologies about social class, education, and political-economic power (for examples see
Researchers find that many doctors, partly due to the “medical gaze” and
managed care constraints, are reluctant to discuss and even recognize circumstances in
the patient’s lifeworld (Foucault 1975; Waitzkin 1991). However, when clinicians do
converse with their patients about social problems, they tend to reinforce dominant
ideologies of work and disability, sexuality and gender roles, and the “rights” of health
(Waitzkin 1991). Many areas have historically fallen under medical control and with the
addition of cultural competence models, culture may be seen as the latest subject to be
expand, the socio-political and economic roots underlying many patient problems
Finally, critical medical anthropology also forms a basis from which to critique
cultural competence models for their incomplete views of the role of structural barriers.
As cultural competence theories gained popularity, analysis shifted away from the role
35
conditions, environmental hazards, institutionalized racism, and an immigrant or
U.S. health clinic as well as their relationship to broader national and international
that represent social and cultural worlds. Linguistic anthropology examines language
through the lenses of anthropological concerns and has at its core such studies as the
transmission of culture, forms of social organization, and how language plays a crucial
has yielded needed data about a situation that nearly every individual has experienced.
This process of sickness and wellness is rife with emotions, cultural patterns and
sociolinguistic roles which often point to wider social and institutional actions and rules;
It is these behaviors, rules, and outcomes that this section will address with a
36
The section will provide a brief history of the research and methodologies of
The two academic disciplines that most often study medical discourse are
sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. Despite sharing certain ideas, theories, and
Linguistic anthropology, the older of the two sub-disciplines, grew out of early
study and documentation of American Indian languages and cultures by Kroeber, Sapir,
Whorf, and other anthropologists in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. While these
“anthropological linguistics,” it was the work of Gumperz and Hymes in the 1960’s which
changed the direction and specificity of the sub-discipline (Duranti 2001). Their resolve
communication – which must provide the frame of reference within which the place of
describing talk as something that directly reflects the beliefs and values of a community
37
Sociolinguistics emerged in the 1960’s as the study of linguistic forms related to
the social context of their use. Gumperz, also a pioneer in this field, used qualitative
basis for the study of language change that began in urban centers based on
under the same umbrella, they generally form a split around their differences in
methodological choices (e.g., ethnography) and theory (Duranti 2001). First, the
treatment of sociological and cultural concepts such as race, class, gender, and age as
attention to context as a changing frame that affects speech itself is generally absent in
sociolinguistics. Third, sociolinguistics’ reliance on the transcript data alone for analysis
paradigms, both of which seek to understand how language creates and recreates
Sacks (1984) and Schegloff (1991), focuses on sequential organization of talk and how
38
conversational analysts, the varieties of sequential organization – the turn-taking system
for managing the construction of the interaction, allocation, sequences for entry into
and exit from conversation, the pauses or hesitations, and the intonation of utterances
– make up the structure for encounters and thus comprise the bulk of the data. Any
additional information about the context from which the discourse occurs is seen as
secondary and to the extent context enters into the analysis, it must be proved that
contextual cues are linked to the participant’s recognition of the categories as integral
to the events being studied (Schegloff 1991; Zimmerman and Boden 1991).
their main methodology. DA does not renounce CA’s micro-level analysis, but suggests
that if researchers want to understand the role of language in people’s lives, they must
go beyond the study of grammar to the world of social action. It is within this cultural
fabric which utterances are shaped and meanings produced. Cicourel (1987) argued
that ethnographic material, participant attitudes, and patterns of social organization are
“Language and other social practices are interdependent. Knowing something about the
1987: 218).
39
structures of social action (Zimmerman and Boden 1991). The tension between CA and
DA results from inherent differences concerning what is being studied and what should
be contained in the final analysis. DA takes talk and the texture of talk as significant in
and of itself. Context may not always significantly impact the shape, form, or trajectory
of the conversation, but it is almost impossible to analyze the meaning of the interaction
understanding of the crucial role played by language in the constitution of society and
from ethnomethodology and directed their gaze into the discourse of everyday social
life, like language socialization, political events, institutional discourse, and doctor-
patient communication (Zimmerman and Boden 1991; Duranti 1997; Gumperz 2001).
participants (Garfinkel 1967). The key then is not to search for the “real” meaning of an
expression or utterance (which would be quite impossible), but rather to try and
determine what a speaker intended to convey in a specific message and how meaning is
created between the speaker and hearer (Gumperz 2001).Together with constructivist
approaches that claim that cultural and social worlds are created and recreated over
time through embodied and disembodied communications (Gaines 1991, 1992), these
theories point to the focus on “communicative practices as the everyday world site
40
where societal and interactive forces merge” (Gumperz 2001: 218). To interact is to
engage in a process of negotiation, both for the speaker to say clearly what they mean
and monitor how they are perceived and for the listener to infer what was intended.
Thus, meaning is created in situ because in general, words can never be precise
and detailed enough to convey a speaker’s true meanings; listeners must make sense of,
or use “practical reasoning” to fill in what is left unsaid (Goffman 1981; Grice 1989).
Individuals frequently base meaning on the “surface form” of a message and rely upon
communicating, such as frames, tone, pitch, rhythm, and so forth (Goffman 1981).
the words correctly. No utterance can be made without these signs and because they
are indirect and often unconscious ways that speakers convey and interpret meaning,
linguistics argue that attention should be paid two-fold to these signs in cross-cultural
Because there are seemingly multiple ways our talk becomes problematic in
sort of problem that arises interactionally (Coupland, et al. 1991). What is different
41
about good communication verses bad? How does a researcher define such subjective
medical communication not only because of the difficulties in literal translation across
languages, but also because individuals bring with them unique socio-cultural rules
about interaction, such as who has the right to ask and answer questions, who can
speak for the patient, when is it appropriate to remain silent or joke, participant’s roles
(such as patient or doctor), and cultural patterns for certain discussions (Hymes 1972;
language speakers would result in a mismatch of rules and competencies and, hence,
result in miscommunication.
speech community share conversational rules about interaction. Chomsky (1965) and
Hymes (1972) both provided theories about “linguistic competence.” However, Hymes
argued that the early separation between competence, or the knowledge of language,
not only when they have the knowledge of the grammatical rules but also when they
speech community, one must know, for example, when to speak and when not to speak,
how to be polite, how to request or offer collaboration, and how to sound calm,
surprised, interested, and concerned. Hymes’ definition replaced the Chomskian notion
42
of competence with the notion of communicative competence which included the
competence in medicine must include not only a translation of the language itself but,
for example, the ability to know how to use appropriate visual cues, slang, or how to
negotiate a treatment plan. I will next examine how linguists study medical discourse
beginning with a historical overview of theories and methodologies and concluding with
specific research data that will ground the findings and significance of this dissertation
research.
Medical interaction and discourse has steadily gained the attention of social
science researchers in the last 50 years. For medical and linguistic anthropologists the
attention to medical discourse is largely due to three main factors: (1) the ability of
research data to positively influence the medical process/community; (2) the specialized
forms of interaction and unique sociolinguistic roles for categories of doctor, patient,
nurse, and interpreter within the medical encounter; and (3) the prominent role of
culture in health and illness. Research not only advances linguistic knowledge and
methods, but is also beneficial for studies of medical anthropology and bioethics and
can be applied to produce better medical and patient education and treatment
decisions.
43
Medical interactions in the U.S. often contain asymmetrical power relations,
and follow-up care (Ainsworth-Vaughn 1998). What are some of the ways in which
clinicians and patients implicitly and explicitly exercise their control and how can we, as
How might a clinician alter their communication strategies with regards to information
who speaks limited English? How should researchers conceptualize the role of a
medical interpreter?
Doctor-Patient Communication
Early scholars believed that asymmetrical roles were essential to the doctor-
unbalanced relationship because it is the doctor and not the patient who is responsible
for restoring health; patients are in a position of dependency for health care, doctors
prestige gives them more social capital and thus control over their patients. However
ardently Parsons supported this role, scholars began to move away from believing
patients were unhappy with the lack of information from their doctors and, in fact, this
was the least satisfactory aspect of their health care (West and Frankel 1991). One
44
received to better health outcomes. Studies from the late 1960’s to mid- 1970’s looked
at the amount of information given in a visit and how patients obtained that
information. However, this research assumed that patient’s needs, wants, resources,
and abilities were constant and evenly distributed. Researchers did not take into
information), then it was only logical for them to behave differently. And if doctors
perceived these differences then it was logical for them to respond differently as well.
given to them in a typical visit did not prove significant. Researchers began to look at
research today, that doctors used a high amount of medical jargon in their
communication that was not understood by their patients. Not only were technical
terms misunderstood by patients, but one study found that even names of common
illnesses (varicose veins, cardiac arrest, and diabetes) were misunderstood (Shuy 1983;
West and Frankel 1991). Korsch, et al. (1968) reported that of 800 patients, more than
half said that their doctor sounded “Greek,” fewer than 5% of patients said their doctor
was friendly or sociable, and more than 25% said their chief concerns were never
45
Frankel 1991). One assumption of this model was that good communication equals
clear communication. Jargon was seen as negative to the receiver, something that
looked for characteristics of better senders and receivers. “Problem patients” were
identified as alienated, those whose sense of power was associated with their lack of
demonstrated that less educated patients and those who had low socioeconomic status
(SES) were less knowledgeable about preventive care, medical terms, and were less
likely to listen to their physicians. Better educated patients were found to be less willing
to yield to the time pressure of the doctor and were more active participants in the
But just how these factors played out in real interaction was less obvious.
Results of two important studies undermined the conduit model assumption that
individuals. Instead of previous hypotheses that doctors told the same things to
everyone based on the doctor’s personal characteristics, Davis (1963) observed that
doctor’s perceptions of patient’s SES altered what doctors said to patients and Roth
(1963) found that the way patients presented themselves influenced the kinds of
46
Thus, a narrow view of language and communication which stressed generic
participants may have (Sarangi 2004). The fact that early studies on medical
these studies did not capture the context of communication. The CA approach used by
such studies utilized quantitative measures of variables and did not often illuminate
what prompted a phenomenon to happen (e.g., a patient question) and what happened
after it occurred (West and Frankel 1991). Discourse, often complex ambiguous, cannot
and ambiguity with which speakers negotiate, leaving open multiple possible
context and include verbatim transcripts of the recorded discourse with their
difficulty at varying levels (social, cultural and linguistic) and West (1984), Todd (1983)
and Fisher (1986) analyzed turn taking and interruptions to examine the negotiation of
organization of reality through symbolism of myths, stories, legends, jokes, and rites and
47
the consequences of medical myths like having enough time for patient treatment.
Lastly, Cicourel (1983) looked beyond verbal data to written texts in order document
how information and meaning is abstracted from the patient, translated through the
Because discourse, and the rules of discourse, reflects broader social issues and
constant – that is, how power is performed and communicated and how features of
questions, interruptions, topic transitions and control, information sharing, jargon, and
through turn by turn processes, constructed partially through actions that control the
Doctors, by virtue of their position within the social structure of the medical
institution, hold a position of authority that the patient role does not encompass
(Foucault 1973; Mauss 1996). In doctor-patient discourse, the doctor may exercise
more authority over the encounter and interview due to the expertise a doctor has over
the disease or ailment. Besides the role of “doctor,” other variables that correlate with
power are the gender, age and ethnicity of the doctor, usually a white male, and gender,
age, ethnicity, and education of the patient (Ainsworth-Vaughn 1998; Fisher 1998).
48
relationships and communication, some researchers have defined power in more
neutral ways. Patients are often described as passive in the medical encounter,6 but a
minority of researchers document the ways in which patients claim power through
one form of power as the ability to implement one’s agenda. If a patient is able to bring
up his or her main issues during an encounter yet only asked 10% of the total questions,
it may be mistaken to assume the patient did not have any power over the visit. The
focus on patient power does not deny that physicians largely control the communicative
process during medical encounters, but it does stress that this is not the automatic
The following overview will briefly highlight the common linguistic phenomenon
communication strategies will be used later in the dissertation to examine power and
Jargon
One way miscommunication can arise is through the use of jargon. Doctors,
because of their specialized knowledge, understand and communicate about health and
disease in scientific medical language. Medical terms also offer a more precise way to
talk about the body and disease processes. However, there is often no attempt on the
6 Findings of patient passivity are partially thought to be due to the situations in which research occurs.
Medical communication research is often completed at a free clinic or university-related research
hospital, with doctors and patients with no prior history, looking at isolated visits rather than sequential
encounters, and without female doctors in the sample (Ainsworth-Vaughn 1998).
49
doctor’s part to translate medical jargon to more easily understood terms for the
patient (Shuy 1974). In fact, some researchers believe that doctors and patients can
patients are medical professionals and patients nod their head and act as if they
understand what is being discussed (Roter and Hall 1993: 93). The result of such a
involved, and, in extreme cases, doctors and patients may miss out on important life-
saving information.
Shuy (1974) studied the discourse between black inner-city patients and white
middle class doctors and specifically wanted to know the degree to which patients felt
like they must communicate with doctors in doctor language. Most of the medical
encounters Shuy observed and recorded were conducted in “doctor talk” and he noted
that most serious breakdowns in communication occur at both ends of the continuum.
The post-visit questionnaire given to 86 patients revealed that 41% said they sometimes
felt the doctor didn’t understand their problem, 38% felt that clinicians used words that
were difficult to understand, and 38% thought it was difficult to explain things to the
doctor. These are not startling findings, especially coupled with more recent findings
that in nearly half of 100 visits observed, doctors used words like tricyclics, stool guiac,
50
Questions
acquiring information; (2) questions claim the right to control the topic and determine
who will be the next speaker; and (3) patient questions often signal to the doctor that
the patient is a competent and active participant in their health and treatment plan.
Particular types of questions, for example open ended or closed, may also transform the
consisting primarily of doctors asking questions and patients answering them (Todd
1983). The observation that in general the speaker who has the power asks the most
questions has been found not only in medical encounters, but also in attorney-witness
Rhetorical questions may also be used by both patient and doctor to mitigate
answer, they may not pose a threat of control over the discourse in the same way a true
question would. For example, in a possibly challenging but face saving rhetorical
effects from her medication. When the doctor did not answer, she stated, “Who can
answer that. Apparently nobody.” Consider the implication and direct confrontation
that might have ensued if the patient had asked “Why don’t you know about the side
Context also appears to make a difference in the number and kind of questions
asked by the patient. West (1984) studied 21 encounters in a clinic whose patients were
51
primarily of low SES. All 18 doctors were white and 14 were male. Using the narrow
adjacency pair definition, West found that 91% of questions were asked by the doctor
and only 9% by the patient; in 48% of visits, patients asked fewer than 2 questions.
Conversely, Ainsworth-Vaughn’s (1998) data taken from a private setting in which all
patients were white, with equal numbers of male and female doctors, and from which
patients and doctors that had an ongoing therapeutic relationship, found that patients
can ask up to 39% of all questions. Ainsworth-Vaughn also suggested that this high
The gender of both the doctor and patient has a significant effect on question
more questions when the doctor was female (an average of 11 questions per visit).
However when the doctor and patient were both male, patients asked on average only 4
questions per visit. This suggests that female physicians may exhibit a more egalitarian
communicative style that allows patients to clarify, discuss, or ask for more information.
Conversing with another person and relaying information involves taking turns in
speaking. Ideally, the listener will begin his or her turn after the speaker is finished.
However, not all discourse follows this egalitarian model and more often, the listener’s
talk will overlap or interrupt the speaker. Not all overlaps of speech are interruptions;
interruptions are defined as an utterance which disruptively overlaps or cuts off the
attempt and sometimes succeed to cutoff a speaker’s point thereby violating his or her
52
right to finish a thought when in control of the conversation. Overlaps tend to occur
because of errors in topic transition timing (the listener begins to take his or her turn
because they thought the speaker was finished) or because the listener wants to show
(West 1984). The latter form of overlap may also be described in the literature as a
Turn-taking in medical interaction usually involves the doctor taking more turns
in speaking as he or she obtains the information for the correct diagnosis and
treatment. West (1984) examined the frequency and outcome of overlaps and
patterned asymmetries in her study according to the patient’s race and gender. White
male patients seeing a white male doctor interrupted each other equally, but white
male doctors interrupted white female patients 1.8 per every 1 patient interruption and
a ratio of 4.4 to 1 with black female patients. “To ask where a patient is feeling pain,
how often, when, or under what conditions is justified by, even required for, precise
diagnosis of a problem. However, when these inquiries cut off what the patient is
saying…then the physician is not only violating the patient’s rights to speak, but he is
also systematically cutting off potentially valuable information on which he must himself
While doctors on average took more speaking turns, West’s (1984) data
concluded that when the doctor was a woman, male patients interrupted far more
53
frequently than when the doctor was male. Additionally, female doctors’ interruptions
only accounted for 32% of all interruptions during the visit relative to the patients who
claimed the other 68%. West contended that when the doctor is female, the
sociolinguistic rules of gendered speaking may be more influential than the role of
doctor.
Medical Interpretation
Language barriers affect the provision of quality health care in many parts of the
world. In the U.S., the number of individuals who speak a language other than English at
home has more than doubled over the last two decades, and over four million
households have been termed “linguistically isolated” (Shin and Bruno 2003). This trend
has coupled with far slower increases in the number of bilingual and multilingual health
care providers (Stoddard, Back, and Brotherton 2000), greatly challenging health care
Research has associated language barriers with the increased potential for misdiagnoses
and inappropriate treatment, the need for repeat visits, inadequate informed consent,
and dissatisfaction in the quality of communication and care among patients and
providers, among other outcomes (Elderkin-Thompson, et al. 2001; Flores, et al. 2003;
Simon, et al. 2004; Dysart-Gale 2005). These findings intensify the need for
In the U.S., policy making efforts to improve access to language services have
been stepped up in recent years. Specifically, the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of
Minority Health, together with President Clinton’s Executive Order 13166 in 2000,
54
added pressure to prior regulations stating that all federally funded health care
programs must produce a clear and written plan of action detailing steps to ensure
access for non-English speaking patients and their families (Perkins 2003). Institutions
have responded to these laws in a less than formal and often unorganized fashion.
interpreter pools while others have no formal training programs for their interpreters
and frequently utilize ad hoc interpreters such as friends and family of the patient as
A National Public Health and Hospital Institute (NPHHI) survey conducted in the
mid-1990’s from 83 hospitals across the U.S. found that ad hoc interpreters made up the
interpret for a major portion of their workday and yet receive no additional
compensation for their extra duties. Duel work roles can lead to conflict and stress
(Haffner 1992; Wadensjo 1998). Using untrained interpreters can also result in frequent
1996; Baker, et al. 1998). For example, family members tend to respond to questions
for the patient without interpreting them, they volunteer their own information, and
well as a bilingual one, it is not difficult to imagine that family members may not
correctly interpret information that they deem inappropriate to share with strangers.
55
providers on how to best use interpreter services. Less than ¼ of the surveyed hospitals
by the NPHHI provided any training for their staff and only 9 hospitals trained their
volunteer interpreters. When clinicians are not trained to use interpreters, they often
make mistakes; for example, they have been found to look at the interpreter and not
the patient, decreasing the sense of connection and rapport between doctor and
One group of physicians looked at how interpreter use correlated with patient
satisfaction. Baker, et al. (1998) used a satisfaction scale to assess language barriers as
well as clinician friendliness, respectfulness, concern for the patient as a person, time
pressure, and comfort at one large California hospital. Patients who did not need
interpreters and spoke Spanish with the doctor (n=237) had the highest satisfaction;
patients who used interpreters (n=120, 88% were ad hoc interpreters) rated their
provider as less friendly, less respectful, less concerned for them as a person, and less
likely to make them feel comfortable; patients who needed an interpreter but did not
have one (n=100) not surprisingly had the lowest satisfaction scores for all items (Baker,
et al. 1998). The authors also found that patients who used an interpreter were less
directly with their doctor and that only 38% of patients who did not have an interpreter
when they needed one stated that their understanding of their diagnosis or illness was
good to excellent.
56
Errors in Interpreting
interpreter and clinician level of training and competence, nature of the environment,
duration of the encounter, and the speaker’s communication behavior and preferences.
clinicians often use medical jargon or speak in lengthy dialogue making it difficult to
translate.
Clinicians are most concerned with the accuracy of interpretations above other
issues (Abbe, et al. 2006). Because of this importance, the majority of research on
medical interpreting reports the kinds of errors interpreters makes. For example,
Flores, et al. (2003) examined the frequency, categories, and potential clinical
patient visits were audiotaped in a pediatric clinic; medical interpreters were present in
6 of the 13 encounters and ad hoc interpreters were used in 7. Errors were classified
fluency (i.e., used an incorrect word or phrase). Interpretive deviations from medical
differences between hospital and ad hoc interpreters with regards to the number of
57
counted for 52% of all errors and was the most common error followed by false fluency
(16%), substitution (13%), editorialization (10%) and addition (8%). The authors
reported a significant correlation between the type of interpreter and errors that had
more likely to have potential clinical consequences than those made by hospital
interpreters (77% versus 53%). For example, when an 11 year old sibling was used, 84%
of the 58 errors she made had potential clinical consequences (Flores, et al. 2003):
Pediatrician: So he vomited five times between 1:00 and 3:00? And after that
he hasn’t thrown up?
Interpreter: That since that time he has not vomited?
Mother: No. Now he has like pain in the ear and so on.
Interpreter: Yes, he havin’ pain.
Mother: Tell her [the pediatrician] that he has something on his mouth.
Tell her.
[Silence]
Pediatrician: How old is he now?
Interpreter: Three.
Most research on child interpreters cites numerous errors in translation. Using child
interpreters in a medical setting may additionally place them in a higher power role and
give them access to more information than the child would otherwise have in that
interpreters, the nature of the inaccuracies, and the behavioral process that promoted
the occurrence of the errors. Language errors were operationalized as a lack of mention
of cultural practices like dietary habits, ethnic beliefs, use of native healers and semantic
were defined as a lack of trust toward the patient by the doctor or interpreter and
58
conflicts over control of the discussion direction. Of the 21 visits they recorded, 11
The authors focused on the processes that foster error development and
prohibit their correction (Elderkin-Thompson, et al. 2001). They found that significant
errors mainly developed due to 4 specific processes. First, when new information
doctor teams dismissed the contradictory information without verifying its accuracy.
information they thought the doctor wanted to hear (see also Davidson 2000, 2001).
Third, when Spanish speaking patients differed substantially with the interpreter on
social prestige and power, the patient’s comments sometimes were ignored, the patient
was not asked for clarification, or the nurse spoke for the patient. And lastly, the nurse
interpreter sometimes avoided cultural idioms from the patient and literally interpreted
V. Introduction to Dissertation
moment to identify, rather than assume, how cultural differences may become
health beliefs and explanatory models about illness (e.g., high blood, nervios, falling out)
59
and have indicated that cultural differences between doctors and patients have the
potential to adversely affect the delivery of health care (Clark 1970; Jenkins 1988;
Chavez, et al. 1995; Browner, et al. 2003). Scholars also highlight related obstacles such
as low patient health literacy, low education levels, low socio-economic status, poverty,
and job-related hazards. Less is known however about whether and in what manner
cultural differences are recognized in clinical encounters, how they may be dealt with,
and which clinical strategies may mitigate the impact of cultural or linguistic barriers
information is provided to the clinician, and we hypothesize that this information may
2001; Kleinman and Benson 2006), how then do patients and clinicians take up this
mitigate or cut-off patient stories, make efforts to seek out explanatory models and
In order to understand how clinicians and patients from different linguistic and
fieldwork at the People’s Clinic, a free clinic in a large metropolitan city in Texas.
Chapter two provides details of the ethnographic setting, the organizational structure of
60
the clinic, as well as the study design, methods, and analysis. The chapter additionally
theoretical models, and how culture was understood at the People’s Clinic. Observation
student clinical program and clinician interviews, provided ethnographic data about how
clinicians and other staff performed cultural competence at the micro, encounter level
and at a macro, community level. The nursing student clinical program provided a
means with which to understand how new clinicians were taught to be aware of the role
The two case studies in Chapter four supply a “thick description” of the way
Specifically, the case studies illustrate the dynamics of a cross-cultural and linguistic
clinical encounter, how treatment decisions were made from the information shared
within the encounter, and the methods used to exercise power and control to either
prevent or encourage information sharing. The case studies articulate how major
simultaneously with one another in order for participants to fulfill their sociolinguistic
Chapter five uses the concepts from chapter four and applies them across the 30
61
explanatory models. In a cross-cultural encounter, are patients more likely to discuss
“cultural” health beliefs? If cultural health beliefs are discussed, how do clinicians
interact with them and how does the information shape the medical encounter?
Chapter six brings to light the role of the medical interpreter. As interpreters are
seen to bridge linguistic and cultural barriers to health care for immigrant and minority
patients, their role and contribution as a major participant cannot be disregarded. This
chapter highlights the various roles that the interpreters held at the clinic, the
Finally, Chapter seven concludes the dissertation, where I reflect upon the
62
Chapter Two: The Setting and Methodology
ethnographic field research at the People’s Clinic, 7 a free clinic in a major metropolitan
area in Texas. I chose to conduct my dissertation research at the People’s Clinic because
early communications with the clinic medical director indicated that the clinic was
particularly focused on culturally aware practices with their largely Mexican immigrant
examples of what not to do in a medical encounter but rarely are there real examples of
medical director was also a professor of nursing, and recognized the value of research
on medical communication.
communication processes and macro-level cultural, social, and political processes, this
research situates the medical encounter within a broader context of the clinic and
clinic that is focused on cross-cultural and cross-linguistic health care with minority
patients and their surrounding community. It adds a triangulated layer on top of most
cross-cultural communication projects because, rather than taking one level or group of
7
All names in this publication are pseudonyms.
63
I. Research at Home
research at home and abroad. From one critical perspective, the anthropologist who
conducts research “at home” is a “native,” at risk for losing scientific objectivity and
involves two processes, identifying and knowing oneself, and the perception and
groups I studied, namely, clinicians and Mexican immigrants. While I had previous
with me notions of the emic and etic perspectives, subjectivity and objectivity, and the
important of reflexivity. The approach, and not the subject matter or location, is what
defines the anthropological endeavor (Sobo 2009). Far from only a discipline of the
In this research, a process of continual reflexivity and militant field note writing
aided a constant dance between subjectivity and objectivity. While I did not have to
navigate new rituals of an exotic tribe or sleep in a grass hut, I did undergo my own rites
of passage and felt the need to examine my research community with new eyes. I spent
64
considerable time learning the languages of biomedicine and medical Spanish of the
clinicians and Mexican participants respectively. Even though I grew up less than 40
miles from the People’s Clinic, both of these groups were as foreign to me as the
refugees from Burma I met during the latter part of the project.
discipline whose early academic strength was devoted to description and analyses
dominated by European power” (Asad 1973:15, see also Said 1978, Stocking 1983). De-
colonizing and post-modern pedagogies also blurred the notions “home” and “abroad,”
“inside” and “outside.” They asserted that field sites must be negotiated, and research
and writing given reflection (Clifford 1997). In these frameworks, the fieldworker
traditional foreign field setting, additional issues will surface and should be discussed.
social justice and health care as a right, I volunteered to assist patients when I was not
actively collecting data when my research participants asked for my help. Not showing
up for a research day meant more than data lost; it sometimes meant that a patient did
not get assistance in enrolling in a free prescription plan or did not get help in finding a
free program for diagnostic mammography. The clinic volunteers and medical staff
were not negligent, but rather there were too few clinic staff, too many problems. I was
65
additionally called upon to present preliminary findings to the clinical volunteers
interpreters, and asked to present a paper at a national YMCA conference in place of the
involvement beyond the interview in new situations. Instead of this being a burden, my
researcher and advocate. Any additional responsibilities I carried while at the clinic fed
directly into my data and analysis and shaped my experience with the community.
The People’s Clinic was founded in1981 in a low income area of a major city in
Texas. The idea for a formal clinic began with a nursing professor from a nearby School
of Nursing and students from his “community clinical” rotation. 9 At this time, the
neighborhood experienced a rise in the number of refugees from Cambodia and Mr.
Kendall, the professor, wanted to help. Mr. Kendall explained these humble beginnings
during an interview with me. He said, “There were a lot of people with a lot of needs.
We knocked on doors with students…we would find problems and wanted to fix the
problems right there. We began to hold onto some data and made a community
assessment tool.” They took the assessment tool to various community agencies and
8
I happily made these presentations and training sessions once the data collection period was over in
order not to unduly influence the very behaviors I was examining.
9
A clinical class is one in which students practice medicine under supervision of a preceptor in real world
settings, such as nursing homes, schools, clinics, and hospitals.
66
used that data to get grants and additional health care volunteers. They started the first
community health care center in Texas, housed in the local police station; the clinic was
Mr. Kendall further explained that the philosophy of the clinic came originally
from the nursing model of district health, “We wanted to take responsibility for this
area. We knew what to do, we didn’t need anyone’s permission.” They operated a
mobile clinic for the next few years and finally, in 2000, rented the basement of a local
church. In the initial months they only saw patients on Saturday but gradually, with
more volunteers and funding, they slowly added clinic days, until in 2006 they were
The People’s Clinic is a not-for-profit agency with 501(c)(3) status. Federal law
from paying some federal taxes under this status. During 2006-2008 the clinic had
approximately 5,500-6,000 patient visits a year. One quarterly report stated that
because of clinical volunteers and a large pool of donated prescription medicine (mostly
pharmaceutical samples), they treated each patient for less than $25, including all
necessary medicines. The 2006 annual report provided the following information on
how many patients were seen in 2006, how many patients received medication, other
67
Figure 2.1 Clinic 2006 Annual Report Data
Since the clinic medical director was a professor of nursing, the majority of
clinicians were family nurse practitioners10 (FNP), pediatric nurse practitioners, and
bachelor’s level nursing students. On an average day, three FNP’s were present: a
pediatric nurse practitioner and one or two family nurse practitioners. Additionally, the
clinic was able to offer some specialty services on a consistent basis: every third Friday a
psychiatrist volunteered her morning, and every other Saturday, a dermatology clinic
was held comprised of a dermatology professor and a few residents from a nearby
women’s health exams one afternoon a week. All of the nurse practitioners and
were affiliated with the Methodist or Presbyterian Church with the exception of two
All clinicians were unpaid volunteers. Those with whom I spoke vocalized a
strong sense of social justice and held the belief that health care was a right to all
10
A nurse practitioner is someone with a master’s degree in nursing and is able to prescribe medicine.
68
people living in the community. During my interview with Mr. Mills, one of the core
clinic every week; he said, “The clinic helps me to live my values in a meaningful way,
that’s what motivates me.” Another female nurse practitioner stated that her reason for
volunteering was that the People’s Clinic was not a bureaucracy like the county hospital
for indigent patients, with “intentions and entanglements and limited access to care.”
She strongly aligned herself with the People’s Clinic’s philosophy of “not turning anyone
away…so if [the patient] can give [a cash donation], you give. If you can’t give you don’t
have to worry about giving.” These beliefs inspired volunteers and played an extremely
A social worker, Ms. Kendall, was the nonprofit clinic’s Executive Director. She
was also the wife of the clinic’s medical director, Mr. Kendall. Ms. Kendall worked two
days a week and was in charge of the “front of the house” things, such as the intake
process and administrative duties. In her role as Director of the clinic, she acted both as
gate keeper and advocate. She met with every patient before they saw a clinician to
determine if they were eligible to be seen at the clinic (i.e., no insurance or access to the
county hospital). She additionally helped patients who needed to seek treatment
elsewhere, usually because the clinic did not have the resources to treat more
complicated diseases that required x-rays or specialized tests, insulin, minor surgery,
etc.
Three to five promotoras, or female lay community health care workers, also
worked at the clinic part-time as interpreters and cultural liaisons. Promotoras were the
69
only people employed (paid) by the clinic besides the social worker/clinic director. The
promotoras were from the local neighborhood, all but one was a first generation
Mexican immigrant, and most of them were patients of the clinic prior to becoming
employees.
Individuals who were eligible to utilize the clinic could not have access to the
Medicaid, Medicare, or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). The
large county hospital in the area did not provide health care other than emergency
treatment to people who were not residents of the county and people who were
offered insurance at their place of employment. This meant if a person worked for a
company that offered insurance, even if the cost per month was too high for them to
afford, they could not see a doctor at the county hospital, other than at the ER. Unlike
other clinics and hospitals in the area, the People’s Clinic did not ask for an identification
card, proof of residency, or proof of legal immigration status. The clinic asked for a
70
donation in an amount that the patient could afford that would cover the visit and any
medication. Most patients gave $5-$20, but patients were not turned away if they
could not make a contribution. Clinic volunteers strongly preferred to keep the clinic
open to anyone who needed health care and had no other place to go.
The constraints at the People’s Clinic were similar to a managed care clinic.
While there was not a policy about the length of patient visits and clinicians knew they
could spend as much time with a patient as needed, they were also aware that most
days, some people were turned away unseen. Other practice constraints included a lack
promotoras.
Over time, the population in the community surrounding the clinic changed from
People’s Clinic was the only health care facility in the area that treated people
regardless of where they lived, their citizenship status, and whether they could donate,
patients came from all over, some up to three hours away. The majority of patients at
the clinic were first generation Mexican immigrants (50%). These were followed by
patients had chronic illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, and
asthma, but the clinic also treated acute conditions such as colds and the flu.
71
Census data from America Community Survey 2005-2007 further tells us that
39.4% of the population in this county, or 837,852 people, spoke a language other than
described themselves as Latino/a. The county ranked 34th in the nation for the
and patient surveys. All research protocol were reviewed and approved by the
clinic volunteers, and patients formed a contextual knowledge base from which to
72
understand subsequent data. For linguistic anthropologists, ethnographic analysis and
in social situations (Hymes 1964). “Language and other social practices are
aspects of communicative events” (Cicourel 1987: 218, see also Lazarus 1988).
Understanding the cultural fabric and broader environment of the clinic helped me to
form through which reality is formulated and organized in a distinctive manner” (68).
which systematically form the objects of which they speak” (49). Thus, my participant
“see” and inhabit a culturally-informed medical paradigm. This research was interested
in questions such as, with such a supreme focus on the biological basis of health and
disease in biomedicine, how might clinicians engage with culture in a medical way, both
inside and outside the medical encounter? How does the belief of culture, cultural
differences, and a culturally informed model of health care become created as a distinct
form of reality?
73
Participant observation also allowed me to triangulate with other methods to
determine differences between what people said to me and what was actually done.
Field notes and notes on methodology benefited the internal and external validity of my
formulate clinician and patient interview questions (Bernard 2002; DeWalt and DeWalt
2002).
included:
o The “front of the house” including the waiting room and triage area – Sitting at
the front desk with the lead promotora and social worker, I observed the
different types of patient problems, heard stories about other clinics in the
problems with Medicaid, food stamps, insurance, etc. From the front desk area
social worker and the promotoras, and the patients in the waiting room.
o The “back of the house” including pharmacy and exam rooms – Clinicians and
74
heard clinicians’ reactions to patients they had just seen, general talk about
diseases, general talk about patients, and general talk about nursing.
2. More than 120 family nurse practitioner (FNP) and patient medical encounters; 30 of
these were audio recorded and I administered either a post-visit interview (21) or
3. The nursing student community health clinical program – During the study, there
were two clinical rotations per semester of eight nursing students. I collected data
o I observed three clinic orientations, held on the student’s first day. These
orientations were meant to show students the proper clinic procedures and
different (or not so different) than seasoned clinicians, and how students
competence and holistic care, namely the transfer of cultural knowledge and
students about immigrant health and culture. This unique opportunity allowed
75
Analysis of this process can serve as an entree to an analysis of the way in which
immigrants and refugees who could not make it to the clinic. Outreach remains an
important function of the clinic since the People’s Clinic was started from outreach
In short, the hours I spent as an observer helped me become familiar with the
day-to-day routine of the clinic, establish trust and rapport with clinic staff, and
generally observe the rewards and challenges the clinic faced in caring for immigrant
and non-English speaking patients. I also saw how the clinic operated on a daily basis,
including how the clinic was organized, clinic philosophy, and patterns of interactions
education programs begin and fail; I overheard numerous conversations about diseases
and immigrant patients in the pharmacy; I observed the primary nurse practitioner, Mr.
Kendall, in his training of nursing students – he discussed diseases but also how one
should treat patients, especially poor patients; I saw disenfranchised patients in their
home environment receive medical care they would not otherwise receive. These
76
observer versus a more detached observer-researcher. For example, as a participant-
observer I helped with filing patient charts during clinic down time; I greeted patients
and eventually helped with the checking in process when no one was available; I
volunteered in the pharmacy (under supervision) while “hanging out,” as I helped stock
and organize medicines; I helped patients enroll with various pharmaceutical programs
and helped them with paperwork when they were referred elsewhere for treatment (for
such as going door to door in refugee communities to administer flu shots with another
medical anthropologist and nurses from the health department; I made home visits with
nursing students to Mexican immigrant patients who had trouble getting to the clinic; I
participated in and eventually took over refugee outreach (after data collection was
over in July 2008) to refugees from Bhutan, Burundi, and Karen refugees from Burma.
namely conflicts around my role as a researcher and the situations that arise when
conducting research with poor and powerless people. Rather than an objective
participant observation was not always balanced over the 2 years of fieldwork. During
the exact mid-point of the research (summer 2007), I became overly involved with
participating when the executive director and medical director (wife and husband team)
left the country for three months and asked me to be one of the people in charge of the
77
day-to-day operations of the clinic. I was also briefly (two months) the volunteer
coordinator, a paid position that created stress while staff tried to understand my
multiple roles of researcher, volunteer, and paid staff. The situation was luckily resolved
when another volunteer offered to take over this job for free. These experiences taught
me the importance of “critical distance” and the ability to question categories and
When visiting people in the community with clinic representatives (like a promotora,
family nurse practitioner, or nursing student) I found it awkward to bring out a consent
form, explain anthropology and my project, and continue to observe. Likewise, refugees
simply had a difficult time understanding my project and anthropology itself. While
they gave verbal consent for me to observe their medical visits or home visits I wasn’t
sure they totally understood. Situations in which there was a problem with the consent
participants lived. I was not prepared for what was expected of me in the field. While
helping people in their homes, I listened to situations and memories of trauma that left
me with many sleepless nights. I learned that a researcher must draw a line for him or
herself about which ethical actions to take. The anthropologist who believes she should
give back to the community she is studying carries with her an additional burden of
78
For example, when a research participant tells the anthropologist immediately
after she has observed his medical visit that he needs help applying for food stamps
because he has no food at home, there is no question about the right course of action.
Many times, the patient I had just observed needed additional medical care, such as a
referral for further testing. Other times, while making home visits to immigrants and
refugees, I found additional need for basic living items, such as food. I always tried to
help because I knew I had the skills and resources, whether the assistance was a phone
call to inquire about a hospital bill or whether I needed to help a refugee, who had been
in the U.S. only one month, make arrangements for her husband who had just
committed suicide. To me these are some of the ways I could give back to the specific
participants and communities who so graciously let me observe and ask details about
to clinic volunteer; these roles allowed me to better understand all sides of the
observed situation. Throughout this dissertation, my goal was to understand why the
research participants acted in the manner they did, to see the medical encounter from
the patient and clinician perspectives. My desire to provide the People’s Clinic with
79
IV. Clinician-Patient Observations & Interviews
patients, clinicians, and interpreters use when they have dissimilar language and cultural
for more specific analysis. Data collected from each encounter allowed me to examine:
symptoms, illness history, and negotiated a treatment plan and follow-up visits,
as well as how patients shaped the encounter to accomplish their goals and
• How participants shared their health beliefs and other information including the
of student nurses collecting the disease history and chief complaint and conducting a
physical exam. Then a family nurse practitioner (FNP) would enter the room, review the
student’s work, and finish the medical encounter. Fifty-four observed (but not
recorded) medical visits and eleven observed and recorded medical visits included a
student nurse.
80
Sampling and Patient Selection
After patients were signed in by the social worker, they sat in the waiting room
until called by a promotora or student nurse to get their vital signs taken. After this
process, they returned to their seats in the waiting room until they were called to an
exam room. I approached patients at random in the waiting room after their vital signs
were taken. I tried to observe a mix of new and returning patients and I oversampled
male patients when they came into the clinic because women and children made up the
waiting to be called to an exam room. I randomly picked a patient’s name from his or
her chart and approached the person in the waiting room. I explained the study in
Spanish or English, 11 reviewed the consent form, and got his or her permission to
observe the medical visit and conduct a post-encounter interview. At the end of our
conversation, I reiterated I would observe their medical visit, including everything they
discussed with the doctor, and would be in the exam room. The refusal rate was less
Once the patient was placed in an exam room, I watched from the back of the
clinic to observe which clinician would see the patient. With no policy in place regarding
continuity of care, clinicians saw patients based on which patient was next in line. All
11
In the beginning of the study, I used an interpreter for the consent process and for patient interviews.
As the study progressed, my Spanish skills, and particularly my medical Spanish knowledge, greatly
improved. If I used an interpreter during the patient interview, I used an interpreter different than the
one used in the medical encounter.
12
I observed but never recorded three medical encounters with the volunteer psychiatrist. Due to the
sensitive nature of the encounter, the psychiatrist believed it would hinder her rapport with the patient to
audio record the encounter.
81
clinicians signed general consent forms for me to observe them with patients. After
determining which clinician was going to see which patient, I asked the clinician if I
could observe the specific interaction, noting that the patient had already consented.
When possible, I chose to follow the same few clinicians. Multiple observations
and unstructured conversations after the encounter with the same clinicians enhanced
the reliability of my analysis and allowed me to distinguish between behaviors that were
routine, accidental, and exceptional for each clinician-patient encounter. For instance,
after hearing clinician A talk with someone who had high blood pressure several times,
it became apparent that this style was different than clinician B’s style.
The first 90 medical encounters I observed were not recorded and no patient
interviews occurred. I observed and took notes during these encounters in order to
better understand the normal routine of a medical visit: what happens when, what sort
of questions are asked during the history taking, when the physical exam happens, how
Observing 90 visits provided a foundation for the actions during the next phase,
patient had diabetes, I knew what questions would be asked by the clinician, what
should be examined, the type of education the patient would receive. I became familiar
with how some clinicians explained the disease, treatment, and follow up, and noticed
when other clinicians did not; I came to know when promotoras were used and when
82
they were not. In short, the initial 90 observations provided a roughly standard
clinicians I observed. Figure 2.4 shows the breakdown of patient age. Most patients fell
in the 25-34 and 35-44 age ranges. The mean patient age was 40.6 years, with the
range of 2 to 66 years.
65+ 5
55-64 16
45-54 12
35-44 25
n=90
25-34 21
18-24 9
1-17 2
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 2.5 shows patient sex. The majority of patients at the People’s Clinic were
female (71%).
male (26)
female (64)
83
Figure 2.6 shows patient country of origin. Forty-five percent of patients were
born in Mexico. The next category, “unknown Latino/a” (37%) represents patients who
were not born in the United States but did not discuss their country of origin.
Mexico 41
Unknown Latino/a 34
Other 6
El Salvador 3
Honduras 2
Guatemala 2
US, non-Hispanic 2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 2.7 shows that 88% of patients spoke Spanish as their primary language.
Spanish (80)
English (10)
84
And lastly, figure 2.8 shows that over half of patients, 55%, were treated for type
treated for an acute problem, such as cold, infection, or some form of body pain.
Type II Diabetes 9
Hypertension 14
Cholesterol and DM 2
DM and HTN 3
Depression + DM or HTN 10
Depression 1
Other MH 5
Infection (cold, flu, sinus, tooth) 14
Body Pain 8
3 n=90
Asthma
Thyroid 2
Allergies 2
Stomach Pain 2
Headache 2
UTI 2
STD 3
Other 8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 2.9 shows the clinician demographics for the 90 observed encounters.
observed were family nurse practitioners or nurse practitioner students. The majority
of clinicians were female. Four medical doctors volunteered once a month and saw
85
Figure 2.9 Clinician Sample (n=90)
Times Volunteer
Clinician Sex Age Ethnicity Training
observed Frequency
Mr. Kendall 33 male 65 Anglo-American FNP/professor weekly
Ms. Engle 13 female 36 Anglo-American FNP weekly
Mr. Mills 6 male 33 Anglo-American FNP/professor weekly
Ms. Smith 3 female 30 Anglo-American FNP/professor monthly
Ms. Peterson 1 female 49 Anglo-American Pediatric NP weekly
Mr. Jim 12 male 24 Anglo-American FNP student weekly
Ms. African-
3 female 30 FNP student weekly
Davenport American
Ms. Kross 2 female 23 Anglo-American FNP student weekly
Unknown
9
FNP Student
Dr. K 4 female 41 Anglo-American MD/psychiatrist monthly
Dr. Kay 2 female 39 Anglo-American MD monthly
Dr. B 1 female 52 Anglo-American MD/immunology monthly
Dr. McG 1 female 46 Anglo-American MD/internist monthly
Thirty of the 120 medical encounters were audio recorded and I conducted semi-
structured interviews with patients or administered a survey after the visit. I personally
conducted some of the interviews in Spanish, especially if the patient knew some
English. Some patients spoke no English and an interpreter was needed. I used an
interpreter different than the one present for the medical visit so as not to influence the
patient’s answers about communication. All encounters and interviews were recorded
The initial interview and survey questions were designed to collect data on
demographic information. After the first four interviews, I added specific questions
86
about patient illnesses and treatments to get at their explanatory models. I also added
questions to the interview to elicit the patient’s belief about the illness, etiology, course
and outcome, as well as their thoughts about the treatments they were currently
undergoing.
While less than 2% of the people I approached in the waiting room declined to
participate, I noted that some interviews were shortened because of time. Thus, I
created a survey for the patients who had already waited two to five hours at the clinic
and did not have the time necessary for an interview. I designed this survey directly
based on the interview, which was then translated into Spanish by a native Spanish
speaker from Mexico. A total of nine patients indicated they did not have time for an
interview and instead filled out a survey. Patients could choose between an English or
Spanish version of the survey. Both the survey and interview can be found in Appendix
I.
with the 30 observed and recorded visits indicate that the 30 recorded patient
encounters are similar to the regular clinic patient population and thus could be
Figure 2.10 shows the breakdown of patient age (n=30). Most patients fell in the
35-44 and 55-64 age ranges. The mean patient age was 43.3 years, with the range of 17
to 63 years.
87
Figure 2.10 Patient Age
Patient Age
65+ 0
55-64 8
45-54 6
35-44 9
n=30
25-34 3
18-24 3
1-17 1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 2.11 shows patient sex. The majority of patients I observed and interviewed at
male (7)
female (23)
Figure 2.12 shows patient country of origin. Seventy percent of patients were
88
Figure 2.12 Patient Country of Origin
Mexico 21
US born Latino/a 4
El Salvador 2
Unknown Latino 2
Columbia 1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 2.13 shows that 76% of patients spoke Spanish as their primary language.
English
Spanish
And lastly, figure 2.14 shows that over half of patients, 63% were treated for
89
Figure 2.14 Patient Biomedical Diagnosis
Figure 2.15 shows the clinician demographics for the 30 observed encounters.
observed were family nurse practitioners or nurse practitioner students. The majority
of clinicians were female, although the majority of the 30 patients saw a male family
nurse practitioner (73%). Three medical doctors volunteered once a month and saw
90
Figure 2.15 Clinician Sample (n=30)
Times Volunteer
Clinician Sex Age Ethnicity Training
observed Frequency
Mr. Mills 13 male 33 Anglo-American FNP/professor weekly
Mr. Kendall 9 male 65 Anglo-American FNP/professor weekly
Ms. Childs 1 Female 37 Anglo-American Pediatric NP monthly
Ms. Engle 1 female 36 Anglo-American FNP weekly
Unknown
3
FNP Student
Dr. Kay 1 female 41 Anglo-American MD/psychiatrist monthly
Dr. Henry 1 female 39 Anglo-American MD monthly
Dr. McG 1 female 46 Anglo-American MD/internist monthly
Clinician Interviews
the following topics: feelings about this patient population (Mexican, Central, and South
their explanatory models about the top five diseases seen at the clinic. The interviews
ranged from to one hour and 24 minutes to two hours and 15 minutes. The clinician
V. Data Analysis
Both observational field notes and patient and clinician interview transcripts
were imported into QSR NVIVO text management software. I used grounded theory to
identify themes and concepts across notes and interviews; this method provides a
91
rigorous procedure for developing theoretical models from the relationships among
I continually reviewed field notes and transcripts in order to pose new questions and
reformulate old ones. At the end of each passage I asked myself, “Why is this
interesting? What is the significance of this?” This process generated the first wave of
open codes, the descriptive codes. I saved these “first-hunch” notes in the software
Once the descriptive codes were created, I needed to bring passages together to
look for higher level codes. Richards (2005: 88) described this as analytical coding which
leads to “theory ‘emergence’ and theory affirmation.” Once observations and interview
text were coded by theme I began to consider the meaning of these themes in context
(Strauss and Corbin 1990; Bernard 2002). Through developing and applying categories
and codes, I built and generated theories about the ways in which culturally- and
linguistically-different clinicians and patients interact and relate with one another.
listening, playing back, and listening again and again to make certain of the pauses,
overlaps, and intonations of speech. I initially transcribed the medical visits. For each
recording I first completed a rough transcription to outline the initial shell of the
interactions. I then returned to the raw data for a more detailed transcription. All
92
medical encounters in which the patient spoke Spanish were then sent to a bilingual
research assistant who completed a detailed transcription, and then translated the
transcription from Spanish to English. In the final step of the transcribing process I
listened again to the recording to finalize the text and add transcription notations for
final transcript:
Two separate analytical phases occurred for each medical visit, discourse
information is passed back and forth between the two subjects, how the patient and
doctor fulfill their sociolinguistic roles, and the methods used to exercise power and
control.
For example, each transcript of the medical visit was coded by hand for clinician
93
strategies. The importance of each of these areas is well documented in linguistic
anthropology and was reviewed in Chapter 1. Because the transcript depicts oral
language, analysis consisted of not only reading the transcript, but also listening
simultaneously to the audiotape to capture the full meaning of what was said.
The medical visit transcript was also imported into QSR NVIVO 2.0 text
management software for qualitative analysis of explanatory models (EM) and illness
research aims was an awareness to document how clinicians and clinic staff were
The next chapter reviews current definitions and theoretical models of cultural
94
competence in medicine and how clinicians understood and made use of notions of
culture, cultural difference, and structural barriers such as poverty and hazardous
working conditions.
95
Chapter Three: Do Cultural Competence Communication Strategies
Alleviate Cultural “Barriers?”
and clinicians create barriers to treatment in health care settings. This chapter explores
current guidelines for culturally competent communication strategies and shows how
clinicians at the People’s Clinic applied such strategies. Because the clinic was the site of
a community clinical for nursing students from a local research university, 13 data were
also collected about how nursing students learned the socio-cultural milieu and cultural
characteristics of this patient population during their clinical rotation. That is, how they
how clinicians at the People’s Clinic widened their gaze regarding patients’ cultural
health beliefs and incorporated macro-structural barriers and the health of the larger
community.
I. Cultural Competence
A review of the recent literature shows that the concern with social service
largely limited to a concern for providing what is termed “culturally sensitive” services.
The notion that medical institutions and its practitioners should be culturally competent
emerged in the late-1980s and accompanied a shift away from the analysis of poverty
and adverse living and working conditions to the analysis of cultural and linguistic
13
A “clinical” is a set of classes in which students practice clinical nursing under supervision of a preceptor
in real world settings, such as nursing homes, schools, and hospitals.
96
difference as an answer to poor health care outcomes among immigrants and minorities
(Shaw, 2005). Advocates for cultural competence believe that introducing culturally
sensitive practices decreases cultural and linguistic barriers and increases certain patient
Over the past 15 years, many health care institutions, and almost every health
profession, have made cultural competency a priority (Hunt and de Voogd 2005). In
2002, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education required that all medical schools
integrate cultural competence into their curricula (Benacourt, et al. 2005). The
American Medical Association also endorses cultural competence and has developed
several curricula for medical students as well as continuing medical education (CME)
programs.14 Currently there are two states, California and New Jersey, which require
physicians to take cultural competence training as part of their annual CME hours
(Landers 2009). The wide spread impetus for the adoption of culturally sensitive
practices has primarily come from health disparity research finding health inequalities
among minority groups and from governmental agencies such as the U.S. Office of
Minority Health, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (Chavez, et
al. 1992; Brach and Fraserirector 2000; Carrillo, et al. 2001; OMH 2001; Vega and Alegría
14
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/general-resources-health-care-
professionals/educating-physicians-controversies-challenges-health/vulnerable-populations.shtml,
accessed 3/10
97
Most cultural competence models build upon medical and linguistic
among cultural groups. Explanatory models are simply concepts about a specific illness
or disease that the sufferer holds and includes ideas about the diagnosis, etiology, and
symbolic and tacit health belief systems about a particular illness episode (Kleinman
1980; Gaines 1992a). Despite the fact that current research and education on cultural
competence provide several areas ripe for anthropological study. Not only are
anthropologists interested in the myriad of ways “culture” is used in our society, but
knowledge(for example, Kleinman 1978; Mishler 1981; Gaines 1982a, 1992; Engel 1984;
Good and Good 1993; Good 1994). Qualitative and ethnographic methods are vital in
highlighting the articulation between the patient and the clinical explanatory model; the
research. Anthropologists, whose focus is holistic, can also incorporate political and
economic determinants of society into studies of health and medicine (Lazarus 1988;
Santiago-Irizzary 1996;Hirsch 2003; Hunt 2005; Shaw 2005). Perhaps the most
15
There has been some scholarship in the areas of psychiatric anthropology and international health.
However, with such a central focus on the role of culture and language in cultural competence theories,
anthropologists have been surprisingly silent on this specific framework. Some exceptions include Fortin
2008, Kleinman and Benson 2006, Shaw 2005, Hirsch 2003, Taylor 2003, Santiago-Irizarry 1996, 2001, and
Lazarus 1988.
98
important reason to probe this topic further is the potential for designing interventions
that would improve health care services, making them more accessible to a diverse
range of people.
and cultural differences at the health care organization as well as in the medical
psychology, and social work), a number of definitions and theoretical models emerged.
models. They are arranged from general definitions of cultural competence to more
debate over which theoretical model is more correct, but rather to constructively
Definitions
developed by mental health researchers two decades ago. Cross and colleagues (1989)
that come together in a system, agency or amongst professionals and enables that
(2). The U.S. Office of Minority Health also adapted their definition from Cross and
99
colleagues. Several research articles used this broad definition as the basis for their
training programs (Dolhun, et al. 2003; Johnson, et al. 2004; Beach, et al. 2005;
Betancourt 2005; Park, et al. 2005; Price, et al. 2005). These articles simply defined
also defines cultural competence very broadly at both a macro-organizational level and
Theoretical Models
about specific actions clinicians and organizations should utilize in their efforts to
illuminate the role of culture and others are more comprehensive in scope to include
16
http://nccc.georgetown.edu/foundations/frameworks.html, accessed 3/2010
100
Meaning-centered and cognitive theoretical models utilize explanatory models
patient’s experience, meaning, and understanding of the illness, and 2) the way of
methodological tools which can help the clinician understand their patient’s culturally
different health beliefs (Chavez, et al. 1995; Korbin and Spilsbury 1999; Browner, et al.
2003; Betancourt 2004; Fitzgerald, et al. 2008; Rosenberg, et al. 2005; Hasnain-Wynia
current literature. Many organizations and researchers use some variation of the
“LEARN” model from physicians Berlin and Fowkes (1983)17 to illustrate a step-by-step
patients:
17
See for example, http://www.diversityrx.org
101
Berlin and Fowkes (1983) adopted the LEARN model, in part, from medical
Kleinman (1980) recommended that clinicians use a series of questions to elicit the
Some researchers have developed original theoretical models, which are partly
based on the above meaning-centered theories, but add communication theories about
the process by which clinicians move towards cultural competency. These models only
focus on the role of cultural difference (Berlin and Fowkes 1983; Rogler, et al. 1987;
Brach and Fraserirector 2000; Wells 2000; Crandall, et al. 2003; Ferguson, et al. 2003;
work sites, and nutrition (Carrillo, et al. 1999; Hansen, et al. 2000; Purnell 2000; Stewart
2004). The notions of “culture” in these models were also more nuanced and complex
acculturation, and ethnic identity. Figure 3.1, the Purnell Model for Cultural
102
Competence, is representative of models in this category; it is non-linear and
family, work, nutrition, biology, risk behaviors, health care practices, religion, death
only does this make implementation difficult but it also stymies careful comparative
103
research (Brach and Fraserirector 2000). Further, most research articles do not provide
models in their everyday practice; out of 30 reviewed articles, only four included actual
case examples.
medical encounter level, and at the macro, or organizational level (OMH 2001). Most
the medical encounter and examines interpreter use, interpreter roles, patient
cultural differences (for example, Baker, et al. 1998; Brach and Fraserirector 2000;
Elderkin-Thompson, et al. 2001; OMH 2001; Putsch 2002; Flores, et al. 2003). This body
of research comes from university medical schools and other allied health departments
and tends to be quantitatively driven and focused on one participant (patient, clinician,
communicative process, nor are they able to comment on the wider health setting
medicine, anthropology, psychology, social work, and nursing. For example, the Purnell
104
Without a large meta-review of the many hundreds of nursing articles written
about cultural competence (the journal Transcultural Nursing alone listed 718 articles
It is clear, however, that the nursing discipline has been involved with studying
anthropological theories with regard to patient health since the 1960’s. Early milestones
in the literature, such as Leininger’s Nursing and Anthropology: Two Worlds to Blend in
1970 and Brink’s Transcultural Nursing in 1976, not only disseminated early
also highlight that in general, nursing curricula focuses more on the holistic elements
that affect patient care than medical curricula (Chrisman 2007).What remains similar
across medical professions is the agreement that more research is needed for the
105
• Minority patients are less adherent to their treatment plans than Caucasian
patients.
Research also associates language barriers with the increased potential for
misdiagnoses and inappropriate treatment, the need for repeat visits, inadequate
informed consent, and dissatisfaction in the quality of communication and care among
patients and providers, among other outcomes (Elderkin-Thompson, et al. 2001; Flores,
et al. 2003; Simon, et al. 2004; Dysart-Gale 2005). These findings intensify the need for
away from the role of macro-structural phenomena in health, such as living in poverty,
that differences in our respective cultures affect health status, treatment, and
biomedicine addressed individual, physical bodies apart from their cultural contexts,
wherein lies the “differences” (Shaw 2005: 292). Thus, while culture was neglected in
situations, especially those involving ethnic minorities (Fortin 2008, Sobo 2009).
notions, that culture, as divorced from civilization, is something that others had,
106
something that could be counted and catalogued (Sobo 2009). Seen in this way, culture
is reified and considered as a concrete, bounded entity that exists in and of itself.
actions necessary for minority patients only. For example, one nursing article explicitly
stated that cultural competence was something that physicians or organizations needed
to master for “appropriate relationships with ethnically diverse patients” (Eunice 2004:
94).
models with the view that patients’ cultural health beliefs are problematic and should
be changed to incorporate the biomedical model. For example, one medical researcher
stated, “Much of the challenges in blood pressure control in blacks have been ascribed
implications for medication adherence and blood pressure control. Therefore, culturally
relevant patient education materials are needed” (Boutin-Foster, et al. 2009: 144).
Cultural and linguistic differences of the patient, then, and not necessarily the culture of
incorporated into the medical model as an external influence that negatively affects
107
Further, a recent meta-review of cultural competence research found that most
studies do not incorporate independent variables other than patient race, ethnicity, or
language preference, making it difficult to understand how other variables beyond these
may factor into medical communication and health inequalities (Brach and Fraserirector
race, ethnicity, and language use, coupled with a lack of inclusion of other variables such
as health beliefs, structural and social inequality, and a method of direct observation,
has resulted in “an atheoretical, purely descriptive research field” that cannot inform
Because variables such as culture, race, ethnicity, language and health beliefs are
patients’ posses; Caucasian middle-class patients, on the other hand, are treated as
acultural and represent the standard of “normalcy” (Santiago-Irizarry 2001; Hunt 2005;
Hunt and de Voogd 2005). Since culture is often portrayed as a foreign, static entity,
nursing students at the People’s Clinic often assumed they must use a different set of
workshop illustrates some of these stereotypes (figure 3.2), in this case, how cultural or
108
traditional frameworks compare with medical frameworks. 18 The “Other” patient’s
culture is portrayed as timeless, homogenous, closer to nature, and slow, while the
and pointing out problematic areas, three major critiques prevent this model from
patient encounters and patient cultural difference and does not investigate the wider
outside his or her social environment, isolates the latter from the conditions that
18
http://hr.healthcare.ucla.edu/Download/Cultural%20Diversity%20and%20Health%20Care.ppt
109
Second, the quantitative scope too often ignores the ethnographic context;
the medical encounter. Quantitative data gathering techniques can only succeed if they
are carefully attuned to specific cultural and environmental conditions, local languages,
and other features (i.e., the emic perspective) that are discovered primarily through
a wide set of values, beliefs, and ways of being that are meaningful within a particular
relational and historical context. Like ethnicity, culture is not inherent but constructed
(Gaines 1992). Medical anthropologist Linda Hunt studied how the concept of culture
was used in health research and wrote in the Lancet that “these studies almost never
include indicators of the specific cultural traits in question, but instead assume that by
knowing someone’s ethnic identity or national origin, their beliefs and behaviours [sic]
differences requires several major leaps of faith” (Hunt 2005). This lack of attention to
collected at the People’s Clinic that shows that clinicians have a difficult time dealing
110
The remainder of this chapter examines the cultural competence model in
comparison to the People’s Clinic practices. While the clinicians did not verbally define
their actions in relation to a specific model, their views were in line with a more holistic
understanding of the factors affecting patients’ health, rather than a model that solely
and belief systems of diverse cultural groups and their impact on health care access and
their own culture and cultural biases in order to understand how the culture of their
patient may bring a different set of beliefs and experiences to the encounter.
and illness. For example, one young female nursing student gave the following answer
when I asked her what she learned about the role of patients’ cultures on health from
“For instance, if you have blonde hair and green eyes or blue eyes and touch a
baby of Hispanic culture you can give them mal de ojo(the evil eye). So when I
went up to a kid and told the parent, “You have a cute kid,” they said, “Ugh.”
Now I won’t say how cute they are. Or if I was assessing the baby, after a while,
when I built a rapport, I would complement maybe the smarts of the baby and
not that they were cute.” [interview with female nursing student]
111
In a second example, a nursing student talked about gendered cultural
stereotypes.
At the end of the day, during the debriefing session, Mr. Kendall (the preceptor)
asked the nursing students, “Did anyone see cultural differences today?” One
student answered that there were more females than males at the clinic, but
then said, “I didn’t see a male make a decision for a woman.” [field notes 10-18-
06]
patients without really asking the patients whether they believed, for example, if
strangers could give their children mal de ojo (the evil eye) just by complimenting them.
stereotypes about what a certain group thinks, “or a bunch of rules about how to deal
with “them,” like so many specialized tools to be stashed in a briefcase and trotted out
the first day of the clinical rotation, Mr. Kendall, the clinical preceptor and clinic medical
between the patients and themselves. Concurrently Mr. Kendall pointed out that all
At orientation Mr. Kendall asked the students, “What is different and the same
with Mexican and American patients?” One student said, “They rely more on
family and on traditional methods of treatment.” One student stumbled over
the word curanderos (traditional healers). Mr. Kendall said, “But that’s no
different than anyone. There are differences of opinion regarding traditional
healers. But who is the definer? What is a culture bound syndrome?” He said
that anorexia nervosa was an American culture bound syndrome and from the
students’ expressions, it seemed that some of them were surprised that
Americans can have culture bound syndromes too. [field notes 8-23-06]
112
Compared to the nursing students, family nurse practitioners (FNP) verbalized
the importance of culture on health care at a more holistic level. My observational data
show that most of the FNPs at the People’s Clinic talked about the general role of
culture in health care with one another during the course of a clinic day and during
“Culture is like my glasses, my first view is my own culture and then I have to see
the patient and their glasses, their culture. We’re like looking at each other
through these glasses and it’s worth recognizing that hey, we have these glasses
on.” [interview with Mr. Mills, FNP]
Mr. Mills’ quote was representative of the family nurse practitioners’ awareness
that patients’ cultures represent a lens from which health and illness experiences are
this view of culture did not necessarily facilitate clinicians to incorporate culture in the
medical encounter. How might clinicians move from awareness of the importance of
memorizing lists of stereotypical beliefs and practices of a particular group, more recent
which clinicians ask detailed and open ended questions, elicit patient questions, educate
patients, test for patient understanding, elicit the patient’s explanatory model(s) of his
or her illness, build partnerships by asking for patient’s opinions and expectations, and
113
negotiate treatment plans (Rivadeneyra, et al. 2000; Roter and Hall 2004). Patient-
centered styles are particularly advocated in situations in which the patient has a
chronic illness and in situations in which ethnocultural beliefs about illness may play an
Generally, family nurse practitioners asked many open ended questions, elicited
patient questions, and provided educational information to patients. They were much
less likely to test for patient understanding (which is especially important when using an
treatment plans.20 Many clinicians asked for patient agenda items and began the
encounter with open ended questions such as “How can I help you today?” or “What
brings you here?” Fewer clinicians also elicited agenda items throughout the encounter
although Mr. Mills (FNP) would routinely ask, “Anything else I can get you?” at the end
clinicians. The patient’s explanatory model was verbalized in four of the thirty recorded
the patient’s and clinician’s health beliefs. In these cases, the clinician’s inability to fully
19
Some patients in this study did not respond to a patient-centered style of communication and did not
participate in informal conversations and treatment plan negotiations with the clinician (see chapter 5). A
patient-centered approach is arguably rooted in Western notions of patienthood and may not be the
desired style by all patients.
20
Patients at the clinic for a routine medication refill arguably may not need to negotiate their treatment
plan at each visit.
114
The following excerpt with Mr. Mills and a Spanish-speaking female patient
illustrates how patients discussed their agenda items and explanatory models and how
clinicians negotiated a treatment plan. This patient had been to the clinic before
although this was the first time that she and Mr. Mills had met. This medical encounter
was observed but not recorded and the data for this excerpt is from field notes.
The patient took an empty bottle of medicine from her purse and told Mr. Mills
that two years ago she got this prescription at the clinic and it really helped. But
she was out and she would like them again. She gave the bottle to Mr. Mills.
They talked more about her symptoms.
M: “It sounds like you have allergies.” This is said in a joking manner because
it is obvious that this was what she had.
P: “Yes, I know.”
Mr. Mills talked about nasal sprays and then asked, “How do you feel about
them?” He used the Nasanox 21 education poster on the wall to tell her about
allergies, the inflammation process, and how the new sprays worked to decrease
the inflammation. Mr. Mills asked, “So would you be interested in trying this?”
The patient said that she used one before and it didn’t work. Mr. Mills asked if
she would like to try another one. Patient said yes, she would try a different
kind, but she also asked if she could have pills too. She then said, “What you just
explained, I feel it” referring to the inflammation of her entire face.
In this encounter, the patient immediately told Mr. Mills her explanatory model,
that she had allergies based on the fact that she had these symptoms before. She
directly asked for a specific allergy medicine and even brought the pill bottle from a
21
Nasonex is a nasal spray for indoor and outdoor allergies.
115
previous visit at the clinic. Using these direct statements is a rare strategy for a patient
because it places the diagnosis and prescribing power in the hands of the patient
this and commented on the strategy by making a joke when he said, “It sounds like you
have allergies” to which the patient replied, “Yes, I know.” Mr. Mills recommended a
nasal spray to decrease inflammation and headache and he negotiated this with the
patient. The patient responded that she did not want a nasal spray but when Mr. Mills
recommended it a second time, her answer was deferent. She answered respectfully
that she would try a nasal spray again but she also asked for the pills as well.
This encounter represented one in which the patient voiced her agenda,
plan. In an encounter where clinician and patient verbally shared their explanatory
model and ideas about treatment and agreed upon them, the communication styles
were participatory and tended to include joking or other ways of making the discourse
more relaxed, and participant’s agendas were met. However, when explanatory models
and ideas are verbalized by patient and clinician, but differ, communication may break
down.
I observed that cultural differences were less tangible, or real, for clinicians to
understand and manage than linguistic differences. For example, a few times Mr. Mills
(FNP) asked his patient what he or she thought was wrong in an attempt to elicit
116
information from the patient’s point of view. Most of the time the patient would
respond with, “No se” (I don’t know), but on one occasion the patient offered his
explanatory model that included a hot-cold imbalance. Mr. Mills listened attentively,
did not correct the patient, but then reported to me after the visit that he did not know
how to apply the information he had elicited. Other clinicians also reported that they
did not know how to “use” the cultural health information they received from patients.
One of the patient’s reasons for coming to the clinic is his nervios. Mr. Kendall
asked him how he came to have nervios. Sr. Lopez said that on a really hot day
in August he was pushing his ice cream cart down the street (his job). He drank a
cold coke and got the illness. Mr. Kendall prescribed an anti-depressant and told
me after the encounter that nervios was a cultural idiom and probably translated
into anxiety. The student-pharmacist asked what to put on the medication label
in the place indicated for diagnosis; she asked, “Should I put depression?” Mr.
Kendall said, “No, put ansiedad (anxiety). Better yet, don’t put anything.”
[fieldnotes 9-29-06]
In this encounter, Mr. Kendall elicited the patient’s own definition and etiology
of the illness; the patient said he had nervios from drinking a cold coke on a hot August
day. However, as he was constrained to prescribe medication, Mr. Kendall mapped the
Mr. Kendall’s beliefs and actions represent a key debate amongst clinicians and
anthropologists, whether illnesses are universal with only the content (symptoms)
117
but the content or symptoms are culture specific). However problematic it is to
distinguish form from content in illnesses with no clear biological basis, this dichotomy
continues in medicine, and especially psychiatry (Littlewood and Dein 2000). Thus,
clinicians and researchers assume a priori that illnesses around the world fit into
Western nosologies and diagnoses, in this case, that the patient’s nervios can clearly be
between the clinician and patient and the result of these encounters was unsatisfactory
for all participants according to their comments in the post-encounter interview. Also,
explanatory models that contained cultural etiologies of their illness and four patients
described models that contained a mix of cultural and biomedical etiologies. This
decisions in medical encounters. Browner, et al. (2003) determined that the decision by
Mexican women in the U.S. to decline genetic testing during pregnancy often resulted
from a lack of trust between provider and patient. There was a statistically significant
understanding of what the test meant. Additionally, the clinicians in the study exhibited
a reluctance to directly address “mistaken” cultural beliefs of the patients. While these
clinicians elicited the patient’s views and explanatory models regarding the testing, they
118
failed to engage in an information sharing dialogue that may have resulted in both
Explanatory models have also been shown to correlate with patient medication
New Orleans, researchers found that there were two distinct illness models for patients
with hypertension, “high blood” and “high-pertension.” The women with “high blood”
felt their blood was thick due to frequently eating fatty foods; these women took their
medicine regularly. On the other hand, women with “high-pertension” did not believe
their illness was chronic and only took their medicine when they felt a “pertension”
attack caused by sudden emotion such as anger or anxiety (Heurtin-Roberts and Reisin
1990). Though the researchers did not collect data from the medical encounter, and
thus cannot speak to how participants communicated their health beliefs to one
another, we can appreciate how a conversation between these patients and their
clinicians may have enlightened and supported participants’ health care decisions.
At the People’s Clinic, cultural health beliefs also posed difficulties for clinicians
outside the medical encounter. During 2007, two nurse practitioners wrote a type 2
diabetes training manual and intervention program for clinic patients. The manual
contained four stages of information for patients and included a pre- and post-test at
each stage. For example, one lesson was created for patients who had just learned their
diabetes diagnosis; the lesson contained information about the disease and a suggested
119
Several “information sessions” were then held for promotoras and nursing
students as the primary implementers, however the intervention never succeeded. One
of the main reasons for the failure stemmed from a lack of relevant information for this
patient population. When promotoras read the lessons to the patients, I observed a
noticeable lack of interest on the part of patients. The diabetes manual appeared to be
written for health professionals rather than patients and did not include cultural health
information that the patients spoke about during their interview with me, such as the
role of bitter cactus tea or other herbs. Nor did it contain information about what
seemed to concern patients most about having diabetes, a deep concern about death,
Thus, despite the importance and role of explanatory models, I found that when
clinicians elicited them, they did not know how to use the cultural information they
obtained. They did not know how to move beyond this phase to a meaningful dialogue
these encounters that clinician can memorize and utilize, they must be self-reflective
about their own cultural biases and understand that biomedicine is one of many
non-verbal communication, the role of interpreters, and other factors at the macro-
structural level that may affect health. And lastly, they should understand that some
patient-centered strategies such as negotiating a treatment plan may not be how all
120
III. Macro-level Cultural Competence
attitudes, beliefs, and practices of their patients, the People’s Clinic focused equally if
not more so on macro-level concerns in their patient’s lives. For example poverty, low
educational levels, low health literacy, lack of understanding the U.S. medical system,
and work related issues were seen as influencing patient health. Cultural factors were
not ignored, but perhaps mirroring the patient’s primary concerns of money and
joblessness as evident from their narratives in the medical encounter, other factors
were believed to be interrelated and as important, if not more important, than culture
to health.
the medical director and clinical preceptor, taught nursing students about the clinic’s
patient population. Because the typical nursing student did not have similar religious,
economic, or racial backgrounds as the patients, Mr. Kendall consistently tried to orient
them to the lifeworlds of the patient. In doing so, he emphasized poverty and the type
During Mr. Kendall’s debriefing at the end of the day he said how important it is
to teach mothers how to help their child succeed in school. “The fact is that rich
people get sick, but it’s unhealthy to be poor.” He then linked the type of work
the typical patient does with difficulty accessing services. Mr. Kendall told the
group for example that the People’s Clinic is the only clinic in the city open on
Saturdays for immunizations. “Texas has the worst problem with access…if you
have to work every day and will get fired for taking time off, wouldn’t you need
to get your child immunized on the weekend?” [field notes 8-23-06]
The clinic’s pediatric nurse practitioner also advised the nursing students to be
aware of the role of poverty in the lives of patients. One afternoon a nursing student
121
came into the pharmacy where other students and I were sitting. She complained about
a frustrating encounter in which the patient did not appear to be taking his medicine.
Mr. Kendall also explained to the students that many patients had difficulty in
understanding the U.S. health care system. Often, the social worker helped clinic
patients make an appointment for a special test or access a better-equipped clinic. She
did not do this because patients literally could not call themselves, but because the
bureaucracy at many of these clinics made it almost impossible for patients to navigate
“The world is full of people who don’t know how to use their insurance. It’s
tragic that people pay for it but they don’t know how to use it. This insurance
system is all set up by white upper-class people and other people don’t resonate
with it or don’t understand it. We find with our patients, they may have access
to the county hospital, but they can’t call to make an appointment.” [field notes
11-2-06]
Nursing students were challenged to think about the choices that many migrants
face, often leaving loved ones behind to make better lives in the long run for their
families. For example, Mr. Kendall, the preceptor, also stressed good communication to
the students, not by using interpreters or speaking Spanish, but treating people with
respect.
“Interactions are characterized with warmth but also with respect. This is Mrs. X
or Mr. X. This is a 40 year old woman who has made it across the desert walking,
122
not Maria, but Mrs. Garcia…The unpardonable sin here is disrespect for patients.
We see different people with all kinds of strengths and backgrounds. Who was
with me with that woman who left her two-year-old baby in Mexico to come
here and make a better life for them? You have to respect that.” [field notes 8-
23-06]
Thus, while cultural issues were discussed, Mr. Kendall and other clinicians
stressed that other forces, such as poverty, can also be barriers to health care.
family nurse practitioners to volunteer week after week, treating patients and teaching
“The clinic helps me to live my values in a meaningful way, that’s what motivates
me” said Mr. Mills (FNP). When asked, what values, Mr. Mills said, “I value social
justice, I feel everyone deserves basic rights, like a healthy life, and I can help in
that way….Like for the students, the Mexican immigrants can easily become a
nameless entity you read about but volunteering at the clinic makes it personal.”
He said there was a common theme in vulnerable populations and while he
couldn’t erase the disparity, he wanted to do what he could to give them the
best chance to succeed. “I feel that with immigrant populations, they have so
many barriers: access, taking off work, paying for health care, that I spend
probably more time than I should with them. I want to give as much as I can.”
[interview with Mr. Mills, family nurse practitioner]
“So I actually, as I came of age and I was in my last year of college and my first
job, I just developed a philosophy of health care as a right and so everyone
deserves it and there should be no strings attached. And so I always had a
problem with the bureaucracies who have these intentions and entanglements
and limited access to care, blocks, obstacles and everything else.”[interview with
female pediatric nurse practitioner]
123
Community Participation
practitioner included participation in the local community and seeing patients in their
home environments. The student clinical activities reflected this belief through
involvement in weekly education classes for new immigrants at two local elementary
schools [photo 1], bi-annual health fairs [photo 2], and home visits to “needy” patients
including visits to Mexican immigrants and recent refugees from Burma and Sudan
Photo 1: A promotora and nursing student lead a health class at the local elementary
school
124
Photo 2: A health fair booth
125
Nursing students were significant partners in these community participation
programs. Afternoon debriefing sessions were used as a way to discuss and digest what
they learned from observing and treating people in their own community setting. In
short, community participation was the best method, in the opinion of this researcher,
for training students about the role of cultural differences and macro-structural forces
on health. Students often told me they had learned about these issues in their classes,
but to observe, first-hand, the complex relationships between culture, poverty, poor
method for them. In support of my findings, one recent study of 134 clinicians found
The following case study is an exceptional example of how the clinic’s outreach
data was drawn from observation notes over several months in the summer and fall of
2007, as clinicians, nursing students, and the clinic social worker aided a specific refugee
Salma and her brother Ahmed, both refugees from Sudan in their late 20’s, first
came to the clinic in August 2007. They each had a medical problem and heard
from other refugees that the People’s Clinic was a trusted place to get care in the
community. Both spoke English fairly well which was good because the clinic did
not have an Arabic translator. Salma had a swollen arm which was too severe
126
for the clinic to treat and the clinician referred her to the ER for an x-ray; Ahmed
told the social worker that he was having trouble sleeping and that he could not
concentrate well enough to read a page in a book and understand what it said.
He said, “This is America, don’t you have pills to make me smarter?” Ms.
Kendall, the social worker, laughed and said if they did, she’d be taking them. He
said that he was on Seroquel 22 and Ms. Kendall asked who prescribed them. He
said the name and Ms. Kendall recognized the person as a psychiatrist at a local
center for torture survivors. Since none of the family nurse practitioners at the
People’s Clinic felt comfortable prescribing antipsychotic medications, Ms.
Kendall called the center and made him an appointment to see the psychiatrist
who prescribed the medication.
Two weeks later Ahmed came back to the clinic and gave the same symptoms.
He had missed the appointment at the other center and the social worker asked
Ahmed if he felt comfortable with the other psychiatrist or if he wanted to be
seen next week by the People’s Clinic’s psychiatrist. He said he wanted to come
to the People’s Clinic and she made him an appointment.
Mid-morning on November 21, 2007, Ahmed walked to the clinic to talk with Mr.
Kendall (FNP and clinic medical director). He said that his sister was in terrible
pain, that she could not move and he asked if someone could come to their
apartment. Mr. Kendall asked me and two nursing students to go. They lived in
the same apartment complex a few blocks away where a lot of refugees lived. It
was an old complex, the swimming pool was “open” but the water was low and
dirty and there were many large cracks in the concrete around the pool. Their
apartment was on the first floor by the pool; it was small and the only furniture
in the living room and dining room were two old couches. There were no lights
in the room except for a hanging light in the small kitchen area.
Salma was sitting on one of the couches, the nursing students and I sat on the
other couch. Ahmed paced around and eventually stood in the doorway
between the living room and bedroom. Salma looked like she was in a lot of
pain, her body rigid. She explained that she moved a heavy couch at work two
months ago and hurt her back and it had been steadily worse for the last three
weeks. The nursing students gave her the naproxen 23they brought with them
and said to take it with food. Salma said she had not eaten recently because she
had no appetite and she hadn’t slept in two weeks. The nursing students asked
about Salma’s job and she said she worked at the large local research hospital on
the cleaning crew, the very hospital where their School of Nursing was located,
22
Seroquel is a “second generation” antipsychotic medication and treats bipolar disorder and
schizophrenia.
23
Naproxen is an over the counter anti-inflammatory medication.
127
but Salma said they did not offer health insurance to their maintenance or
cleaning people.
I asked Salma what she did in Sudan and she said that she had a bachelor’s
degree in medical equipment and technology and had worked at a large clinic.
When I asked why she was working on the cleaning crew she said that was the
only local job she could find. We talked to her about workers compensation and
she said that she was denied workers comp and even got a letter, but then
yesterday someone called and said that she had an appointment next week with
a worker’s compensation doctor. Salma did not know where or what time. She
asked if someone could take her because she physically could not get on the bus.
Eventually the students examined Salma’s back and they found a large knot next
to her spine. It looked extremely painful. We left after about 20 minutes to
consult with Mr. Kendall and Ms. Kendall about what to do. As we left, a man
and woman knocked on the door; they were cousins, also refugees from Sudan,
who lived in Colorado. They were worried and came to help. They said they
wanted to take Salma to the ER and the male cousin and Salma’s brother
followed us to the clinic to speak to Mr. Kendall directly. Mr. Kendall advised
them to go to the hospital where Salma worked and ask for at least an x-ray.
A few days later I got an email from Ms. Kendall, the clinic social worker and
executive director, which said Salma had breast cancer and that the cancer had
metastasized to her back. I went to visit her in the hospital two days later.
Salma was really angry because the oncology doctor told her the diagnosis in
front of her brother. She said her brother was very fragile, had PTSD and
psychosis, and she didn’t want him to know because he would be really upset.
Later that week Ms. Kendall called me and said that the cancer had spread to
Salma’s brain and she only had a short time to live. This was very upsetting news
to me and all the clinicians who knew the brother and sister. Immediately, Ms.
Kendall worked to get her hospital bill waived and to set up hospice care so
Salma could go back to her apartment.
Two nursing students and I visited Salma weekly for the next three months. The
students helped Salma’s brother and female cousin who had temporarily moved
in, and worked with the hospice nurses. Whenever I visited, Salma’s cousin did
not want me to talk about the cancer in front of Salma nor did she want the
hospice nurses to talk to her about what she should expect to happen as she
died (in terms of pain management and expected course of death). In the last
few weeks, members of the local mosque contributed enough money for a plane
ticket and VISA so that Salma’s mother could come from Egypt. A Muslim social
worker from the mosque helped the family with funeral arrangements at a local
128
Muslim cemetery. After Salma died, her mother returned to Egypt and Ahmed
moved to Colorado to live with his cousins.
absorb. Looking back on my field notes with temporal distance, I can see how the
situation exemplified the caring, respect, and hard work on the part of volunteers at the
People’s Clinic. The nursing students learned firsthand how biology, culture, poverty,
poor working conditions, and experiences being tortured combined to create Salma and
Ahmed’s circumstances. Salma was a relatively skilled refugee with a university degree
whose lot was to work as a cleaning woman at a major research hospital. She did not
receive health insurance from this hospital because she was considered a contract
laborer. She thought her back pain resulted from an injury on the job, so she was never
examined because of a lack of insurance, and died from breast cancer at 28. I do not
suggest that health insurance could have prevented Salma’s death had she been seen
earlier, but she may have been more likely to take advantage of routine preventative
Through cases such as this, nursing students and other volunteers learned first-
hand about cancer and hospice treatment, about religion, cultural rules about who has
the right to know health information in the family, and cultural burial preferences.
Students also learned that working at a hospital did not guarantee access to health care.
129
IV. Discussion
While cultural competence and the reduction of linguistic and cultural barriers
have their necessary place in research and advocacy, macro-structural factors can
overwhelm these efforts. For example, Chavez and his research team (2003) attempted
to implement an intervention program for breast and cervical cancer awareness for
Latina women based on their findings about cultural health beliefs. In the end, Chavez
expressed doubt about how much his knowledge of cultural differences could really help
the women:
competence in medicine as a major step in the right direction for immigrant and
minority health, anthropologists who study this movement believe that cultural
competency discourse can result in blaming “culture” for ill health (Lazarus 1988;
Santiago-Irizarry 2001; Hirsch 2003; Taylor 2003; Hunt 2005; Shaw 2005). Hirsch (2003)
wrote that both our theoretical and applied work has been stymied by an over-
argued that more attention be paid to the broader structures of knowledge that serves
barriers, cultural differences, and the role of macro-structural barriers. While family
nurse practitioners did not verbalize a specific theoretical model related to cultural
competence, they had a general awareness of the role of culture on health care and
illness. Their views on medicine as a right for all people motivated them to volunteer
week after week and to teach the next generation of nurses. Cultural competency and
ensure the observance of patient rights, such as the right to respect and
nondiscrimination. Nursing students, on the other hand, often spoke about how much
they learned from a hands-on application both in the clinic and with community
outreach activities.
Although nurse practitioners understood the role of culture, they were less
proficient at incorporating cultural health beliefs into their practice. Chapter five
provides an in-depth examination of these types of encounters. But first, Chapter four
specific attention paid to the way participants provide medical and lifeworld
information.
131
Chapter Four: Case Studies in Cross-Cultural Medical Communication
how information is shared within the encounter. Chapter five will provide an analysis of
information to one another and how that information is used in subsequent treatment
actions. Because the medical encounter and the wider clinic environment are
negotiated spaces where social, cultural, and structural relations are played out, case
studies provide detailed snapshots of the ways patients, clinicians, and interpreters
fulfill their sociolinguistic roles of securing and providing health care. Specifically, the
case studies indicate the dynamics of a cross-cultural and linguistic clinical encounter,
how treatment decisions are made from the information shared within the encounter,
and the methods used to exercise power and control to either prevent or encourage
information sharing.
communication strategies work simultaneously with one another. Linguistic studies that
only examine the space of the medical encounter and not the clinic environment, or
that only analyze one type of speech activity in order to understand communication
incomplete because they ignore not only the ethnographic context but how each
132
strategy works in tandem with others.
The first case study took place between a 65 year old man from Mexico, Señor
Hernandez, and Mr. Mills, an Anglo family nurse practitioner who was 36 years old.
Luisa was the promotora; she was in her early 30’s, was a first generation Mexican-
American, and lived close to the People’s Clinic. Luisa took the patient’s vital signs
before his visit (i.e., took his blood pressure, blood glucose level, weight, and chief
complaint). This was the first time Señor Hernandez and Mr. Mills had met. Señor
Hernandez had type II diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure and he had
been a patient at the clinic for almost 4 years. This encounter was exemplary of a
cooperative venture with participants working together to have good and clear
participation, and Luisa worked as a team member with Mr. Mills to ensure accurate
Prior to this visit, I observed Mr. Mills 19 times and Luisa 27 times, and thus was
familiar with their styles, both individually and how they usually worked together. Mr.
asked many open-ended questions, tended not to interrupt patients, provided verbal
their treatment plans through a process of negotiation (Rivadeneyra et al. 2000; Roter
133
and Hall 2004). He also spent time providing educational information to patients and
frequently drew diagrams on the exam table paper to show various disease
Señor Hernandez was unlike the typical male patient at the clinic as he provided
a great deal of information to Mr. Mills and Luisa about his medical and personal issues.
understanding that he had three major chronic diseases. As a patient of the People’s
Clinic for a number of years, he was familiar with the routine of the clinic, including
being familiar with the lack of continuity between clinicians and patients. The fact that
he was a regular patient may have contributed to his active participation in the medical
in relation to the literature on minority patients; Roter, Hall, and Katz (1988) show that
minority patients receive less information, ask fewer questions of the clinician, and
receive fewer positive comments than Caucasian patients (see also West 1984).
The ethnographic context of this case study informs the qualitative data that
134
M: Señor Hernandez.
P: A-huh.
M: ¿Hablas inglés?
Do you speak English?
P: No.
M: No, no hablo mucho. Un momento. Ay. (….)
No, no I don’t speak much. Wait a second. Ay.
M: Sabes Luisa y Marisa?Okay. Alright.
You know Luisa and Marisa?
¿Cómo está usted?
How are you?
P: Bien.
Good.
M: Ah, so what can I do for you today?
L: ¿Que qué puede hacer por usted ahora?
What is it that he can do for you today?
P: Pues que me de la medicina.
Well he can give me the medicine.
L: Just give him the medicine.
M: Okay. How has everything been?
L: Dice que cómo ha estado todo?
He says how has everything been?
P: Bien.
Good.
L: Well.
M: Any problems with the medicines?
L: ¿Algún problema con la medicina?
Any problem with the medicine?
P: No, no, ninguno.
No, no, none.
[
L: No.
This encounter began with Mr. Mills immediately speaking to Señor Hernandez
in his native language. Mr. Mills used Spanish to find out whether Señor Hernandez
spoke English and to ask for a moment so he could bring in an interpreter. Mr. Mills
then used Spanish to introduce Luisa and me. Even after the interpreter was present,
Mr. Mills used Spanish to ask Señor Hernandez how he was doing (“Como esta usted?”)
135
and used the respectful form of the verb (usted), rather than the more familiar, intimate
inquiry (Mishler 1984; Fisher and Groce 1990; Wodak 1997). The initial question by Mr.
Mills is significant because it sets the tone of the encounter. In this case, an open-ended
question, asked in the patient’s native language (“How are you doing?”), indicated a
respectful invitation for the patient to provide information about how he was doing.
When Señor Hernandez gave a one word answer “good,” Mr. Mills asked another open-
ended question, “What can I do for you today?” Señor Hernandez’s answer provided a
very direct reason as to why he was at the clinic, “Well he can give me the medicine.”
None of Señor Hernandez’s answers to Mr. Mills’ questions added valuable information
(okay, good). This lack of information may be the reason Mr. Mills asked four open-
ended questions in a row at the beginning (as noted in bold type). This type of opening,
which includes introductions and four open-ended questions, is different from other
Patient Competence
in which individuals show they understand and perform the rules of communication, but
1972). Both patient and clinician occupy specific sociolinguistic roles in the medical
interaction, and each participant’s role contains fairly rigid rules about his or her
136
expected behavior. For example, the sociolinguistic role of clinician, as someone with
more knowledge capital, is more powerful than the role of patient. Hence, clinicians
tend to control the subject of conversation and the time in which patients speak. A
patient, however, may control the medical visit, while staying within the “patient role,”
(Fisher 1998).
The next excerpt from this encounter demonstrates that Señor Hernandez is
competent as a patient with diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.
137
mañana a la tarde.
Because I have a notebook in which I have counted every day from the
morning to the afternoon.
L: He has ah a book where he’s point, ah writing down how much is the DFS
and what is he eating.
M: Okay so-
[
P: Y a lo más me ha llegado a 200, no más.
And it hasn’t gone beyond 200, not more.
L: And the highest has been 200.
M: Okay, and you’ve been doing that at home?
L: ¿Y lo está haciendo en la casa?
Are you doing that at home?
P: Sí.
Yes.
L: Yes.
M: Do you have the (..)? Did you bring the?
[
L: ¿Trae el librito con usted?
Did you bring the notebook?
P: No, no lo traje.
No, I did not bring it.
At the beginning of the excerpt, Mr. Mills told Señor Hernandez that his “sugar”
was high this morning and in response, Señor Hernandez offered his explanation, that
he had a sugary drink and pan dulce, or sweet bread, that morning. Mr. Mills rephrased
what he just heard, either to show he was listening or to double check the information:
“So you’re thinkin’ that maybe that that was the reason.” And Luisa translated back to
Mr. Mills’ rephrasing of this question is significant because it kept the topic
focused on what Señor Hernandez just said. During his “turn” to speak, Mr. Mills did
not change the topic to move on to another medical question. He confirmed what he
heard which allowed Señor Hernandez to have the floor, or control of the topic. Thus,
138
Señor Hernandez offered even more information; that he regularly checked his sugar at
home and kept a notebook of the results. The highest blood sugar number he had
recorded was 200. Mr. Mills asked if he brought the notebook to the clinic, and Señor
Interestingly, Luisa added medical jargon, which the patient had not used, when
she interpreted Señor Hernandez’s statement for Mr. Mills. Her insertion of the medical
term “DFS” (the blood glucose number) and re-phrasing of the statement from “Because
I have a notebook in which I have counted every day from the morning to the
afternoon,” to “He has ah a book where he’s point, ah writing down how much is the
DFS and what is he eating,” changed what Señor Hernandez said and made it more
The information provided by the patient, information that he kept a daily food
journal and tested his blood sugar at home, carried certain implications for future
expectations and treatment based on the amount of cultural capitol Señor Hernandez
interactions and treatments for cancer in two women’s clinics, Fisher (1998) found
direct correlations between a woman’s competence in her role as a patient and the
indexed by patient questions and knowledge about the illness, both of which “…have
the potential to change the direction of the treatment decision” (Fisher 1998: 110).
139
In this case example, the fact that Señor Hernandez provided information
showed more than his patient competence. Because he told Mr. Mills that 200 was the
highest blood sugar count, and that the lowest was 80, Mr. Mills did not increase his
diabetes medicine despite the fact that the blood glucose level was high the day of this
medical encounter. 24
high patent competence is that the clinician, Mr. Mills, verbalized his trust in the
24
The normal reading for a person’s blood glucose level is 80-125.
140
but I get that feeling from you that you’re at the point.
L: Dice que él no sabe porque estás en tu casa pero el siente que sí te has
tomado la medicina.
He says he doesn’t know because you’re at home, but he feels you have
been taking the medicine.
M: That you’re doing those things to
[
L: Y lo estás haciendo bien
And you’re doing it well
P: Sí entiendo
Yes, I understand
L: Yes he is doing it.
M: I get that feeling from you for sure.
Wrapping up the medical encounter, Mr. Mills asked his usual open-ended
question, “Anything else I can get for you?” and Señor Hernandez said “no.” Mr. Mills
repeated the treatment plan a final time; he reminded Señor Hernandez which medicine
was changing, “We’ll go up a little bit on your blood pressure medicine,” to which Luisa
translated and then added “instead of having half you’ll take it all.” Señor Hernandez
offered that he takes the medicine as directed on the box and Mr. Mills replied that he
knew Señor Hernandez was taking his medication as directed, that he was doing the
right thing.
communication such as gestures, nods, or silence. Most of the literature finds that the
information discussed during the encounter stays in the biomedical realm and that
141
participants have difficulty discussing issues in the social, emotional, or personal realm,
also known as the patient’s lifeworld (Mishler 1984; Waitzkin 1991; Barry, et al. 2000;
Barry 2002).
Chapter one discussed the beneficial reasons why clinicians are encouraged to
talk with patients about the way in which their illness affects them in medical,
emotional, and social ways. However, an inherent tension exists between the kind of
information the clinician wants, needs, and tends to elicit. Scholars argue that clinicians
need to hear information about the patient’s lifeworld to arrive at a correct diagnosis
and treatment plan. Encouraging the patient to share this information may also
Yet the majority of research shows that clinicians utilize communication strategies to
prevent this from happening. Calls for a narrative-based medicine from within the
medical profession further the argument that a scientific-based medicine alone cannot
help patients cope with the meaning of their illness or loss of health (Brody 1987;
Kleinman 1988; Charon 2001). As one physician noted, “if physicians cannot practice
with empathy, reflection, and trustworthiness… the patient might not tell the whole
story, might not ask the most frightening questions, and might not feel heard” (Charon
2001: 1897).
participants. After briefly talking about diabetes, blood pressure, and cholesterol, Mr.
Mills turned to the new medical complaint presented by Señor Hernandez: his painful
142
knee. The following excerpts provide three points of interest: 1) Señor Hernandez
offered many illness stories and personal information, 2) Mr. Mills spent time talking
with Señor Hernandez about arthritis and treatment options, including drawing a
diagram of the problem on the exam table paper, and 3) Luisa provided information to
Mr. Mills, without prompting, in addition to what Señor Hernandez said. These excerpts
represent short stories which can be woven together into a meta-narrative about Señor
143
P: Ya tengo años ya, como unos dos, tres años.
It’s been some years now, like two or three years.
L: Two or three years.
cholesterol), Mr. Mills asked about his knee pain, “Okay and then you’re having, your
knee’s hurting huh?”to which Señor Hernandez responded “Si.” Instead of launching
into a series of closed questions (how long does it hurt, when does it hurt) which
constrains the patient’s response and decontextualizes his experience, Mr. Mills
Open-ended questions are meant to invite the speaker to give an answer that is
more than a few words. However, Luisa had prior knowledge about the knee, so when
she translated Mr. Mills’ open-ended question, she turned it into a closed question and
prompted the “correct” answer from the patient: “What happened? You told me it
swelled up right?” Señor Hernandez answered, “Yes, it got swollen the other day.” Luisa
interpreted this but also added information for Mr. Mills: “On one occasion it got
swollen…and it was pain here. And it passed to the other and it came back to this
creating meaning (Garro and Mattingly 2000). Señor Hernandez’s symptoms were co-
created by Luisa, showing that illness narratives, as “lived” and unfolding interactions,
cannot be separated from their narrators or the space in which they are told. Luisa’s
involvement could be a form of patient advocacy, helping Señor Hernandez tell the
144
“correct” story to Mr. Mills. Or it could be a way of speaking, providing an illustration of
illness narratives that are created interactionally and contain multiple voices, both
interpreters. What is the role of the interpreter when she knows additional information
about the patient? Why did she tell the clinician, in this case, in a way manner that
made the clinician think she was quoting the patient verbatim, rather than stating, “He
told me earlier that his knee was swollen.”? These issues, and the interpreter-clinician
Once Mr. Mills examined Señor Hernandez’s knee and explained that he was
suffering from arthritis, Mr. Mills began to talk about treatment options. Señor
Hernandez, who had a friend with a knee replacement, interrupted Mr. Mills to tell a
story.
145
There is-
Si hay porque allá en mi rancho se dio un hombre que pronto estaba
chueco de los dos pies.
There is because over there in my town there was a man that all of a
sudden was stiff on both feet.
L: He says there is a cure for that.
P: Y aquí está trabajando ya con fuerza.
And now he is working strong.
[
L: In his town, he had a friend who had kind of the same and
now he, I guess he couldn’t walk over there and now here is he working
now already.
M: A-huh, a-huh and so-
[
P: Está listo y hasta corre.
He’s all set, he even runs.
L: Now that person can run, he doesn’t know what operation it is.
P: Si, si.
M: A-huh, so what they probably did is they probably did a knee
replacement.
L: Lo que pasa es que a lo mejor le hicieron le reemplazaron la rodilla.
May be what happened is that they replaced his knee.
P: Algo hubo pero no supe qué, el ya está listo.
There was something, but I didn’t know, he’s set.
L: He doesn’t know.
Señor Hernandez interrupted Mr. Mills twice in this excerpt (bolded), a very
unusual communication strategy for minority patients to use with a Caucasian clinician
because of the power differentials between patients and clinicians (West 1984). He
interrupted the clinician to tell a story about his friend who had severe knee pain. While
the type of treatment prescribed for his friend is unknown, Señor Hernandez indicated
the knee is now “working strong.” Interestingly, Señor Hernandez described this
friend’s recovery in terms of work. He could have said that his friend was pain free.
Instead he positioned the benefits of the surgery in terms of being able to go back to
146
work. Later Mr. Mills returned to the relationship between the potentially disabling
knee pain and work and talked with Señor Hernandez about his job.
At the end of the excerpt, Mr. Mills moved the story into the medical realm and
explained that the patient’s friend probably had a knee replacement. Mr. Mills talked
about knee replacements and the components of the surgery [omitted from excerpt].
He also said that the typical process is to wait until the pain is extremely intense before
surgery is prescribed. Finally, Mr. Mills described a new anti-inflammatory drug that
In the next excerpt Señor Hernandez again took control of the conversation to
tell two treatment stories. He did not interrupt Mr. Mills, but rather spoke in Mr. Mills’
147
P: Tengo un primo mío en México y va y le inyectan este líquido.
I have a cousin in Mexico and he goes and he gets a liquid injected.
L: He had a cousin, in Mexico they inject him (.) with a kind of liquid.
P: Y le ponen líquido y anda un tiempo bien pero se le acaba y otra vez anda
ahí.
And they put liquid and he’s fine for a while but when it’s over he’s again
like.
[
L: So they inject him
M: mhmm
L: And sometimes he’s well with that liquid and then he’s back with pain.
M: We do, that is something that (.) how do I say this. It’s something that is
done here in the US too.
L: Dice que eso también es algo que lo hacen aquí.
He says that they do that here too.
148
put the injection in but he didn’t want to, he just stayed with the pain.
M: Gotcha.
P: Dijo y si te sientes bien después vienes y yo te pongo una cada vez que te
duela el pie.
He said and if you feel better later, you come and I will put it in every time
your leg hurts.
L: So that doctor wanted him to try that injection and the next time he
would just come and get it and he would pay for it.
M: Oh gotcha.
L: But he didn’t want to.
M: I understand.
P: Sí, pero mejor me voy a tomar las pastillas que me dieron
Yes, but I better take the pills you gave me.
L: So he’s gonna take the pills.
opportunity to share their knowledge and feelings about the illness. However, it is
sometimes difficult for patients to feel comfortable sharing such information, much less
gain control of the conversation long enough to tell a story. Tuckett, et al. (1985) found
that during most observed surgery consultations (n=405) in the UK, doctors made an
effort to state their views on the medical topic and to provide a rationale for them.
of the patient’s condition or asked patient to share their illness stories. When patients
spontaneously volunteered personal information, doctors did not ask the patient to
elaborate and, in fact, they often evaded or inhibited these expressions from the patient
These last two excerpts of the case study demonstrate that Señor Hernandez
successfully told several illness narratives. Most of the narratives were about treatment
options for his knee pain. In excerpt five, Señor Hernandez gained control of the
149
conversation by interrupting Mr. Mills twice. He told a story about a cousin in Mexico
who had found relief from a liquid injection but the injection was a temporary solution.
Mr. Mills responded to this illness narrative and explained that the injection was most
likely cortisone and then explained how it was used [this part omitted from excerpt]. In
excerpt six, Señor Hernandez responded to Mr. Mills’ explanation by saying, “Yes.” He
then kept control of the conversation to tell another illness narrative, this time one
despite his pain. At the appointment with his wife, he did not want his wife to tell the
doctor about his knee pain. He explained, “I told her [his wife] don’t tell him anything
about me, he has to cure you.” The doctor offered to inject the knee at no cost but
Señor Hernandez did not want anything injected, regardless of the cost. Mr. Mills did
not attempt to interrupt the story or regain control of the exchange; he provided
Señor Hernandez ended the lifeworld narrative by bringing the topic back to the medical
realm by saying he would take the pills that were given to him for his knee pain.
The subjects of Señor Hernandez’s narratives included his friend, his cousin, his
wife, and his own story. By telling other people’s stories in relation to his own, Señor
Hernandez demonstrated his wide authoritative knowledge about the subject and
positioned himself as a patient who talked to friends and had seen other doctors for his
medical problem. Clearly, Señor Hernandez told narratives about treatments such as
150
Cortisone injections or surgery to indicate that he preferred not to undergo these
treatments at this point because they were too invasive. Stories, because they display
and define the self, are one way that patients can exert power over the medical
audience one way or another, even to teach the audience. By telling Mr. Mills stories
about treatment options, Señor Hernandez tried to convey his authoritative knowledge
Cultural Competence
One goal of studying medical communication at this free clinic was to observe
understand the cultural attitudes, beliefs, and practices of their patients. While
clinicians at the free clinic talked about the importance of cultural differences with one
another and the nursing students, in the medical encounter, when they were one-on-
one with the patients, they more often focused on poverty, low education levels, low
Researchers have found that doctors are reluctant to discuss or even recognize
circumstances in the patient’s lifeworld (Taussig 1980; Mishler 1984; Waitzkin 1991;
about social problems, they tend to reinforce dominant social ideologies in areas such as
151
work and disability, sexuality and gender roles, the “rights” of healthcare, and other
issues (Waitzkin 1991). Instead of avoiding macro-level issues, many clinicians at the
free clinic talked regularly to patients about their lifeworld including poverty, education,
class, and the U.S. health care system. For example, in this excerpt below, while
discussing Señor Hernandez’s knee pain, Mr. Mills asked what he did for a living.
152
A lot of lifting and all
P: Sí.
Yes.
M: I know that um, things like that affect what you do and how you make a
living so.
L: Se sabe que cosas así como esas pues afectan las cosas que hace, como el
sobrevivir.
He knows how these things can affect the things you do every day.
Throughout the encounter Mr. Mills did not seek out or begin a discourse about
cultural differences with Señor Hernandez; rather the life circumstances he discussed
were those surrounding the patient’s job. In excerpt five, Señor Hernandez told a story
about his friend in Mexico who had knee pain, underwent a procedure, and then was
“working strong.” This story may indicate that Señor Hernandez worried about his own
knee pain, but a worry that he did not directly want to talk about. The fact that Señor
Hernandez had osteoarthritis, was older than 65, and worked on his feet in a
construction job was significant. Rather than ignore these difficult life circumstances
and what they may have meant in relation to his role supporting his family (Waitzkin
1991), Mr. Mills shared with Señor Hernandez that his father was also a construction
worker. Mr. Mills showed empathy by saying he knew how difficult it was to work a
manual labor job with “lots of heavy lifting, moving…” and that knee pain could affect
how someone makes a living. By these actions, Mr. Mills may have reduced the social
Obviously, all participants in this encounter, the nurse practitioner, patient, and
153
rarely have the opportunity to share personal information with clinicians, given the
When attending to this patient’s lifeworld, Mr. Mills used different techniques.
First, he used statements and questions to produce structural cohesion. Rather than
involvement (Mishler 1984), Mr. Mills’ responses often supported Señor Hernandez’s
statements and kept the topic of conversation open until they were both ready to move
on. In this manner, Mr. Mills clearly demonstrated that he heard and understood what
was said and further, that Señor Hernandez should continue talking. For example, in
excerpt six, Señor Hernandez held the floor to tell his story while Mr. Mills’ statements
P: Dijo y si te sientes bien después vienes y yo te pongo una cada vez que te
duela el pie.
He said and if you feel better later, you come and I will put it in every time
your leg hurts.
L: So that doctor wanted him to try that injection and the next time he
would just come and get it and he would pay for it.
M: Oh gotcha
L: But he didn’t want to.
M: I understand.
P: Sí, pero mejor me voy a tomar las pastillas que me dieron
Yes, but I better take the pills you gave me.
L: So he’s gonna take the pills.
In the post-encounter interview, Señor Hernandez said that at other clinics it was
154
mentioned that he liked coming to the People’s Clinic because the clinicians explained
things in a way that he could understand. The next section proceeds to the second case
study, a different kind of medical visit in which the patient’s lifeworld issues were not
attend to.
The second case study describes an encounter with a 36 year old woman, Señora
Lopez, born in a rural part of Mexico. As I entered the exam room with an interpreter
before the encounter to ask consent to observe the medical encounter, I noted that she
had a worn and tattered-looking spiral notebook on her lap. I asked Señora Lopez if she
was writing down medical information and she said she was writing a letter to her
husband who was in jail. Talking about her family, Señora Lopez told me her husband
was caught a few months ago while crossing the border near Laredo, from Mexico into
Texas. She had seven children, three of whom were small. She started crying as she told
me about her children, saying that her blood sugar that morning tested over 500 and
that she was afraid of dying. 25 She knew friends and family who died from diabetes.
She also said someone broke into her apartment three months ago, which added to her
worry. It was evident that Señora Lopez felt unsafe at home, was very worried about
her husband in jail, which increased her strain as a single parent, and her uncontrolled
25
Fasting (not eating in last 8 hours) normal blood glucose levels are between 80-125; over 500 is
considered an emergency and many people are hospitalized when their sugar level gets this high. National
Diabetes Information Clearinghouse, www.niddk.nih.gov
155
After Señora Lopez and I talked about the research project, Mr. Mills, the family
nurse practitioner from the first case study entered the room with Luisa, the same
promotora and interpreter. This was the first time Señora Lopez and Mr. Mills had met.
156
M: Okay, alright. Have you, how have you been feeling with the medicine?
L: ¿Y cómo se estado sintiendo con la medicina?
And how have you been feeling with the medicine?
P: Con es, es como te digo hay días que me siento bien y hay días que me
siento mal.
It’s, like I tell you, some days I feel fine, others I feel bad.
L: Sometimes well, sometimes bad.
As with the first case study, this one also began with an introduction by Mr. Mills
in Spanish followed by an open-ended question, “So how are you doing today?” Señora
Lopez answered with a feeling, “Me siento mal” (I feel bad) and then redirected this
feeling to physical symptoms, that she had pain in her back and head. Mr. Mills
responded, “Okay,” and then paused for 7 seconds, possibly encouraging the patient to
continue to talk about her pain. When she did not, Mr. Mills spoke again and said the
last time she was in the clinic was a week ago. He then asked another open-ended
question, “So how have things been going since then?” Señora Lopez again said some
Mr. Mills briefly mentioned her medicine and then asked the third open-ended
question, “How have you been feeling with the medicine?” Señora Lopez again simply
repeated that some days are good and some bad. Possibly trying to understand more
specific feelings and symptoms from the patient, Mr. Mills next explained how people
feel when their blood sugar is low. This prompted Señora Lopez to say that she had
been feeling that her sugar level was high, that she eats and eats and is always hungry
In the next few minutes Mr. Mills asked about her diabetes symptoms and
157
discussed the lab results from the last visit. In addition to her blood sugar levels being
dangerously high, Señora Lopez had high cholesterol levels. Because of these two
issues, Mr. Mills recommended that Señora Lopez make an appointment with the out
patient clinic of the county hospital, which had a greater ability than the People’s Clinic
to help her with lab testing and insulin, if needed. Señora Lopez explained that she did
not know how to access the hospital and Luisa asked her several questions to see if she
qualified for the hospital “insurance” card for indigent people. If so, Señora Lopez could
access services on a sliding scale fee. After determining that she did qualify because she
lived within the city limits, it came to light that the patient was not working and was not
in the country legally. Señora Lopez quickly changed topics to one of her concerns
158
No.
L: No. She’s not going to be staying there over night.
M: No, no, no.
P: ¿No?
L: They
P: Me tengo…mi chamaca le da miedo quedarse con [unintelligible].
I have… mi little girl is afraid to stay with [unintelligible].
L: No, cierran a las seis esa clínica.
No, they close that clinic at six.
P: ¿Oh sí? Y tengo dos chiquillos.
Really? And I have two small boys.
L: Because she has small babies.
M: No, I-I, you, with your sugar at 500,
L: Con la azúcar a quinientos,
With your sugar at five hundred,
M: we get concerned,
L: Lo que es preocupa
What worries him
M: but there’s not, (..) it can get so high that you would have to spend the
night.
[
L: Puede llegar más alto a modo que tiene que quedarse allí.
It can go higher and then you might have to stay there.
M: But where we are right now, it, it wouldn’t be a time to spend the night.
[
L: Pero orita, esta en un nivel donde puede llegar a
controlar.
But now, they are at a level where you can control.
P: Sí, mhm.
Yes, mhm.
M: What are we going to do in the meantime?
Señora Lopez interrupted Mr. Mills to voice concerns from the space of her
everyday life (bolded); she asked if she would have to spend the night at the hospital.
She went on to say that she had small children and they did not like staying there alone.
Mr. Mills reassured her that she would not need to stay the night this time, although her
sugar levels were extremely high. Mr. Mills did not take up discourse around Señora
159
Lopez’s contextual fears about her diabetes, that very high sugar levels could
necessitate an overnight stay at the hospital. She also did not have the opportunity to
clearly explain that she had no childcare assistance, that her husband had been in jail for
some time, and that she felt the neighborhood was unsafe. Mr. Mills did not recognize
her lifeworld and thus did not ask Señora Lopez if she had a husband, partner, or any
other social support. His discourse with the patient stayed strictly within the medical
format. After he reassured Señora Lopez that she would not have to spend the night he
changed the topic and asked, “What are we going to do in the meantime?”
The consultation continued in the voice of medicine as Mr. Mills explained the
treatment plan to Señora Lopez: that he would increase her diabetes medicine and add
a medication for cholesterol. Almost 19 minutes into the encounter, he asked Señora
160
to see how and if you qualify and
everything.
P: Okay.
M: Alright. [said in a concerned /caring tone:] Do you have any questions or
anything?
L: ¿Una pregunta?
A question?
P: Eh, no.
Eh, no.
L: She said no.
M: I know it’s kind of scary too.
L: Dice que sabe que está un poco, le puede dar miedo.
He says he knows you are a bit, that it can be scary.
M: But-
[=
P: Porque tengo, no le digo que dos chiquitas [short laugh]
Because I have, I’ve told you I have two girls
[
L: She has small kids, children
P: y que no me quiero morir todavía.
and I don’t want to die yet.
L: and she doesn’t want to die yet.
M: No, understand, understand. And you’re. We’re the same age so I
understand, I understand. We’re close to the same age.
L: Dice que…si entiende.
He says that... he understands.
M: The good news is that you’re here, you’re-
[
L: La buena noticia es que está aquí
usted.
The good news is that you are here.
M: You’re working hard, you know you’ve been
[
L: Está trabajando duro
You are working hard
M: coming the last you know, you came in June, a week ago=
[
L: Vino en junio, vino hace una
semana
You came in June, you came
a week ago
M: =You’re right back here again, you’re taking your medications.
161
[=
L: Ya está aquí usted, se está tomando la
medicina.
You are here now, you are taking your
medicine.
Mr. Mills now seemed to open the floor for an emotional discussion about
Señora Lopez’s illnesses asked how Señora Lopez felt about her diabetes; he related that
it was scary. For the second time, Señora Lopez voiced concern about her high blood
glucose levels from her diabetes, the fact that she had small children, and that she was
afraid of dying. However, Mr. Mills did not talk with Señora Lopez about these issues, or
probe into the fears of her illness and what it meant in her life. Rather, he tried to make
her feel better by talking about what she was doing medically right: coming to the clinic,
Twenty minutes into the encounter Señora Lopez brought the conversation back to her
lifeworld.
162
P: Y no fue.
And I didn’t go.
L: And she can’t…ahora fue?
You now went?
P: No, está bien caliente.
No, it’s too hot
[
L: It’s too hot for her to work.
M: mhmm-mhmm
[
P: Y cual tengo azucar alta no puedo
And since my sugar is high I can’t
[=
L: When her sugar is really high and she feels she can’t-
M: Mhmm-mhmm
P: Tengo, vivo en apartamento que tiene aire acondicionado pero
[unintelligible]
I have, I live in an apartment that has A/C, but [unintelligible]
L: She says that she lives in apartments and there’s central AC but she still
needs to have another fan.
M: Mhmm-mhmm, absolutely.
[to himself:] Where was I going with that. And then the other thing is,
you know, what we’re going to be worried about is:
interjected and said that she previously had a job at a laundry mat but had to quit
because it was too hot. She went on to say that when her sugar was high, she felt too
hot to work. She may have wanted Mr. Mills to legitimate this claim that her diabetes
made her unable to work. But by not commenting or engaging in this topic, Mr. Mills
subtly reinforced the idea that Señora Lopez’s diabetes should not be a medical excuse
troubles in tandem with their medical discourse, many of which have roots in socio-
163
political issues beyond the individual level. When such personal, economic, and social
concerns arise in the medical encounter, the language of medicine leaves few options
for action. Generally, clinicians respond with technical solutions and counsel patients
toward dominant status-quo behaviors; i.e., that healthy people work. “The language of
medical science can convey ideologic content, especially when it converts social
problems into technical ones…that is, by a lack of criticism directed against sources of
distress in the social context, medical discourse ideologically reinforces the status quo”
(Waitzkin 1991: 47). Many times, clinicians are not prepared to discuss basic social
Not only did Mr. Mills remain silent when his patient stated that she could not
work because of her high sugar level, he changed the topic and brought the discourse
back to the medical realm by saying that with the increase in diabetes medicine she
needed to be aware that her sugar level could get too low. He explained that one of the
Lopez to interject that she was so tired on some days that she did not want to get out of
164
L: Si se siente muy cansada
If you feel really tired
M: You feel like you can’t even hardly get out of bed
L: Y que no se pueda parar de la cama
And you can’t get out of bed
M: Um-
[
P: Hay días que me pasa eso
There are days I feel that
[
L: There are some days like that
M: mhmm, but-
[
P: Hay dias que me pasa eso que no me dan ganas ni de salir de la cama a
darle de comer[unintelligible].
There are days I feel like I don’t want to even get out of bed and feed the
[unintelligible].
L: She, she feels that sometimes like that, that she doesn’t even want to
feel like feeding her children.
M: Mhmm-mhmm
P: Y no me quiero parar de la cama porque me siento cansada
And I don’t want to get out of bed because I feel tired
[
L: She doesn’t want to get out of bed, she’s
tired.
M: Mhmm, the um, sometimes what that is is-
[
L: Dice que lo que pasa a veces lo
que es
He says what’s happening is
M: When your sugar is high
[
L: Cuando tiene la azucar muy alta
When your blood sugar is too high
P: mhmm
M: Your body
[
L: Su cuerpo
Your body
M: is trying to adjust and so,
[
165
L: esta ajustantdo, verdad.
is adjusting, right.
M: That’s why you’re hungry all the time.
[=
L: Y por eso tiene usted mucha hambre todo
el tiempo.
And that’s why you are very hungry all the time.
Señora Lopez interrupted Mr. Mills two times and told him how terribly tired she
felt (bolded). Mr. Mills again did not respond to Señora Lopez’s concerns that there
were days she could not even get out of bed to feed her children. He returned to a
medical explanation. Instead of probing for other possible signs of depression, or asking
about her feelings and support systems that she might access, Mr. Mills switched the
topic to the voice of medicine and explained that the reason she was tired was because
her sugar levels were so high and that the sugar was not getting into the muscles where
it needed to be. He unilaterally shut down the topic of her tiredness by saying that they
would continue to work together at the clinic in the future, although the hospital was
the best place for her to receive treatment currently. Mr. Mills asked Señora Lopez to
return next week, and then asked if there was anything else he could get her. She
responded, “no.”
166
M: Alright. Hang in there, everything’s going to be good. I promise.
L: Dice que aguante y que todo va a estar bien.
He says hang in there and that everything will be fine.
P: [short laugh] Okay.
M: I can tell she’s (..) scared.
L: Que sabe que tiene miedo.
He knows you are scared.
P: [short laugh]
[22 sec while A listens to heart and lungs]
M: Good, let me check. [8 sec]
Alright, alright let me go and get some medicine and I’ll be right back.
L: Va por la medicina y ya viene para acá.
He will go for the medicine and he’ll come back.
P: Okay.
At the very end, in this last excerpt, Mr. Mills actively brought up Señora Lopez’s
feelings. After asking a highly open-ended question (“Can I get anything else for you?”),
he said, “Hang in there, everything’s going to be good. I promise.” After Señora Lopez
laughed nervously, Mr. Mills again tried to connect with his patient’s feelings by saying,
“I can tell she’s scared.” And again Señora Lopez laughed. It could be that at this point,
Señora Lopez had given up on discussing her worries and concerns with Mr. Mills and
In summary, excerpts from this case study show instances in which the clinician
spoke in the voice of medicine against the patient’s lifeworld concerns. Mr. Mills’
strategies produced a scattered affect from the point of view of the patient’s lifeworld.
Many times his statements or questions lacked cohesiveness and did not refer back to
Señora Lopez’s prior response. Instead, he introduced medical information into the
conversation to which the patient was expected to reply (Mishler 1984). This pattern
167
occurred five times throughout the entirety of the encounter. The patient’s story, told
My sugar level is very high, in fact so high that I am afraid of dying and leaving
my small children alone. I am also the sole family caretaker and am afraid of
seeking additional treatment for my diabetes at the county hospital because I
don’t want to be admitted overnight. If I stay overnight, there will be no one to
look after my children. While I am the sole caretaker, I can’t keep the job I had
because my sugar level is so high that it makes me very hot and the job at the
laundry was so hot it was unbearable. All of this leaves me very tired, so tired
that sometimes I do not want to get out of bed, even to feed my children.
Barry, et al. (2001) described patients such as Señora Lopez as notable in their
repetition of their lifeworld in the face of the structure of the medical encounter. Most
patients who repeatedly brought up personal situations did so because they had strong
feelings about their situations, often situations that included chronic diseases like
diabetes. In their study, Barry, et al. (2001) described this kind of encounter as
“lifeworld ignored.” As patients spoke in the voice of their lifeworld, clinicians ignored
their comments and communicated in the voice of medicine. Patients in this category
often left the office visit feeling unheard; patients in this category also had the poorest
IV. Discussion
Patient-Centered Style
Overall, Mr. Mills’ style of treating patients fell squarely within a “patient-
disease is as essential as knowing what kind of a disease a person has” (Platt, et al.
2001). These clinicians are more likely to use language as a diagnostic tool in
conjunction with physical exams and tests. Additionally this style focuses on creating a
partnership between the clinician and patient both by considering the patient’s point of
view and negotiating aspects of the treatment. Unfortunately, while medical students
as well as seasoned clinicians want to focus on the patient, studies by Platt, et al.(2001)
which clinicians ask detailed and open-ended questions, elicit patient questions,
educate patients, test for patient understanding, elicit the patient’s explanatory
model(s) of his or her illness, build partnerships by asking for patient’s opinions and
expectations, and negotiate treatment plans (Rivadeneyra, et al. 2000; Roter and Hall
patient has a chronic illness and in situations in which ethnocultural beliefs about illness
between Mr. Mills, his patients, and the interpreters resulted in the following
observations: Mr. Mills was mindful of the positioning of his body as he tried to sit at
eye level or below the patient; he maintained very good eye contact with patients and
did not always focus on the interpreter; he provided backchannel cues of listening (e.g.,
169
“mhmm” or “yeah”) and nodded his head; he introduced himself to the patient at the
beginning of the encounter and sometimes introduced the interpreter; he asked open-
ended questions about the illness and the patient; he sometimes talked about his
personal life to make connections with the patient; he used humor; he did not use a
large amount of jargon when discussing complicated medical terms such as the analysis
Because the first case study was in essence a first-encounter visit between Señor
Hernandez and Mr. Mills, the encounter included many of the history-taking questions
in which the patient’s participation was limited. Nevertheless, Mr. Mills’ repeated
discuss his lifeworld and opinions about treatment. In fact, Mr. Mills asked 13 open-
ended questions and Señor Hernandez volunteered personal information eight separate
times. Mr. Mills did not interrupt Señor Hernandez during the encounter; however,
Señor Hernandez interrupted Mr. Mills twice (excerpt 5) to tell his treatment narratives.
This is a very unusual pattern for patients to use as clinicians are consistently found to
170
interrupt patients at a rate of four-to-one (West 1984).
In the second encounter, Mr. Mills asked a total of six open-ended questions,
about half the number as in the first case example. Interestingly, Señora Lopez
volunteered information about her lifeworld several times, but she did not do so in
information during a different topic of conversation or at the end of a topic. As with the
first encounter, Mr. Mills did not interrupt Señora Lopez during the encounter but he
used two distinct patterns to diminish her lifeworld comments: 1) he engaged with the
patient’s topic but changed the topic out of the lifeworld into the medical realm, or 2)
he took control of the floor and abruptly changed the topic. For example, in excerpt four
when Señora Lopez spoke about not having a job because of her diabetes symptoms,
Mr. Mills’ next utterance was not a comment about joblessness. Instead, he provided
listening cues (mhmm, absolutely) and then changed the topic of conversation.
When the patient’s lifeworld is repeatedly blocked by clinicians, the patient can
be de-contextualized from his or her illness. However, Señora Lopez’s dangerously high
diabetes levels, over 500, may have been such a concern to Mr. Mills that he was not
focused on her personal and emotional narratives. The American Diabetes Association
identifies hypoglycemia as a prolonged glucose level greater than 130 (fasting) or 180
(non-fasting). Chronic hyperglycemia at levels more than slightly above normal can
171
produce a very wide variety of serious complications over a period of years, including
kidney damage, neurological damage, cardiovascular damage, damage to the retina, and
so forth. Glucose levels as high as 600 may trigger a diabetic coma.26 It is possible,
then, that Mr. Mills unconsciously focused on this high risk danger as the more pressing
As a clinician who frequently verbalized his intense feelings about social justice
and “health care for all,” Mr. Mills knew that the People’s Clinic was the only medical
organization that could provide healthcare to this population. He also understood that
most patients who were referred to the county hospital (observed during my research),
such as Señora Lopez, did not follow up and make appointments. The financial cost of
receiving treatment and numerous bureaucratic barriers at the hospital were too
difficult for most immigrants to manage. Mr. Mills, perhaps, wanted to focus on Señora
Lopez’s critical medical concerns to emphasize that she really must get help outside the
free clinic. Seen in this way, Mr. Mills’ typical meaning-centered role diminished as he
These two case studies, focusing on Señor Hernandez and Señora Lopez,
necessarily mean that clinicians are always open and responsive to the patient’s
personal and emotional issues. Rather, clinicians are challenged to make a concerted
effort to notice and be attentive when the patient overcomes discourse obstacles and
26
WebMDhttp://diabetes.webmd.com/hyperglycemic-hyperosmolar-nonketonic-syndrome accessed
3/10
172
presents information from their lifeworld. Obstacles which make it difficult for patients
to bring up personal and emotional information include the normative format of the
medical encounter which gives clinicians more power over discourse, sociolinguistic
roles such as the authoritative role of clinicians in comparison to patients, and clinician
controlling the topic of discourse, and asking closed questions (those that elicit a yes or
no response).
While individual communication styles were very different in these two cases,
each case example was comprised of the same clinician and interpreter. Both case
communication behaviors are situation specific and constructed in the interaction rather
than a fixed quality by each individual. Medical communication studies emphasize that
patients and clinicians are not all alike. Each brings different expectations and desires to
the medical visit, including how they communicate their expectations and desires. Thus,
all patients do not want to talk with their clinician about how their illness influences
their personal lives; nor do clinicians, even those who purport patient-centeredness,
Taking a broader look, numerous clinical studies show that medical outcomes
are improved when patients are treated as interactive partners during medical
173
encounters (Roter and Hall 1992; Koehn 2004). However, while medical anthropologists
and other social scientists have emphasized the importance of the patient’s lifeworld in
al. (2001) stands out as the experts in this minority group. She and other authors asked
“whether ignoring the lifeworld leads to medicine which is less effective and which fails
to be attentive and responsive to the patient’s needs as a unique human being” (491).
Their study found that patients who attempted to discuss their lifeworlds, but had
clinicians block or ignore these attempts, had the worst medical outcomes of any group.
The challenge faced by clinicians and patients alike is that they must establish a
space of shared meanings, to the patient and clinician, in order to communicate and
understand one another. At the People’s Clinic, clinicians faced a double burden; not
only did words need to be translated into Spanish or English, but languages and beliefs
treatment. As Mishler, author of the seminal work on lifeworld narratives, noted, “The
special asymmetry of the medical interview is that the physicians are communicatively
competent in both codes. They can speak in either the voice of the lifeworld or of
medicine, but patients are competent in only one” (1984: 172). Thus, the burden falls
on the clinician to translate the patient’s experiential statements into medicine and
174
ethnography,” has the possibility to greatly reduce mistakes due to misunderstanding
and misinformation. It can reveal unmet patient needs and minimize unrealistic
expectations, and it can provide a vehicle for the patient’s voice to be heard (Roter and
Hall 1992; AMA 1999; Barry, et al. 2001; Koehn 2004; Kleinman and Benson 2006).
Kleinman provides a clear methodology for this in his writings on the explanatory model.
In reality, at a free clinic such as the one studied, conducting a mini-ethnography may be
highly challenging. In most cases, the clinician is forced to make rapid assessments
about the patient’s lifeworld while simultaneously treating the physical or medical
can be gathered over the course of several medical encounters, thus enhancing the final
This chapter presented ethnographic case study data about how medical and
A careful analysis of communication strategies showed that patients and clinicians can
create a space for patient’s authoritative knowledge and lifeworld information, which
can be incorporated into the medical treatment. On the other hand, lifeworld
information can be blocked by clinicians, which may lead to the patient feeling unheard
and dissatisfied.
Chapter five discusses the content of lifeworld narratives across the 30 medical
175
immigrants, the analysis shows that differences in cultural health beliefs were not found
176
Chapter Five: The Lifeworld and Explanatory Models
The case studies from the previous chapter provided a detailed view of
communication strategies and the ways information is invited and passed from one
participant to another. This chapter shifts emphasis to examine the content of patient
information across 30 medical encounters. When patients discuss their lifeworld, what
do their narratives contain? What is the clinician response? Because of the explicit
examine the kinds of messages and information that are discussed by the participants,
whether cultural differences may affect health care decision making and treatment, and
how participants make sense of issues that are communicated during the encounter.
the notion that patients and clinicians have different perspectives about diseases,
illnesses, and the illness experience (Kleinman 1980). A medical encounter often
the “voice of the lifeworld,” and voices from other ethnomedical systems (Mishler 1984,
Gaines 1992a; Kingfisher and Millard 1998). In this chapter, the fluidity of these voices,
as dynamic conceptual systems, are present in the way participants communicate and
Unfortunately though the concepts are well articulated, relatively little linguistic
data exists from cross-cultural medical encounters about the nature or consequences of
177
possible discordance in these voices.27 Do patients share cultural or ethnomedical
issues with the clinician? If so, how does this information shape the medical encounter?
that may more fully incorporate mutual agreement and acceptance in a medical
encounter.
narratives are simply stories that patients tell about their life experiences, including
illness experiences and problems. The lifeworld often contrasts with the “voice of
1984).
tandem with reviewing the encounter transcript to see if lifeworld narratives were
present in the encounter and the content of those narratives. Explanatory models are
ideas and preferences about the diagnosis, etiology, and treatment that people believe
about a specific illness or disease. Because models are partly rooted in symbolic and
tacit health belief systems, models are not static and can lack coherence (Kleinman
27
In fact, of the 26 research articles about cultural competence written by medical professionals
discussed in Chapter 3, only four contained real examples of medical communication in a cross-cultural
encounter (Hansen, et al. 2000; Eunice 2004; Fitzgerald, et al. 2005; Rosenberg, et al. 2005).
Anthropologists writing about cultural competence nearly always include examples from their research
data (e.g., Chrisman and Maretzki 1982; Lazarus 1988; Santiago-Irizzary 1996; Hunt 2005; Shaw 2005;
Kleinman and Benson 2006).
178
1980). Specific attention was paid to whether explanatory models were discussed, and
if so, which primary model they were most closely aligned, biomedical or cultural. Of
the 30 observed and recorded medical encounters, nine encounters stayed entirely in
etiologies, or issues from their lifeworld. And in six encounters, the clinician tried to
Table 5.1 presents this information along with the patient’s biomedical
diagnosis. The last column, “post-interview with researcher,” shows the patient’s
etiological beliefs and whether he or she utilized treatments other than the medication
provided by the People’s Clinic. In some instances the patient did not discuss their
explanatory model during the interview; this is designated by “--” in the cell. Nine
patients completed a survey instead of an interview; the survey medium was not
Present
Encounte Post-Interview
Complaint/Biomed Encounter
r# w/ researcher
Diagnosis
No Lifeworld (n=9)
7
ACUTE: Ear infection No lifeworld Survey
9 CHRONIC: Type II
No lifeworld Survey
Diabetes
10
CHRONIC: Allergies No lifeworld Survey
Mixed etiology: “tensions” and the
12 CHRONIC: pancreas not working well
No lifeworld
Type II Diabetes
Was taking cactus for diabetes
CHRONIC: Type II Cultural etiology: drinking certain
19
Diabetes, leg cramps, No lifeworld liquids, such as grape juice, on the
shoulder pain full moon
179
24
CHRONIC: Allergies No lifeworld Biomed etiology: dust
25 ACUTE: Stomach Biomed etiology: overeating,
No lifeworld
pain/gall bladder “bad” foods
26
ACUTE: Stomach pain No lifeworld Survey
Mixed etiology: a sudden event
that caused the sugar/pancreas to
CHRONIC: Type II
28 be high
Diabetes, toe/foot No lifeworld
infection
Spoke a lot about fears of
infection
Clinician Initiated Lifeworld (n=6)
6 CHRONIC: Hypertension,
Clinician initiated lifeworld --
High cholesterol
8
CHRONIC: Hypertension Clinician initiated lifeworld Survey
11 ACUTE:
Clinician initiated lifeworld Survey
Ear infection
16
ACUTE: Infection Clinician initiated lifeworld Survey
17 CHRONIC: Type II
Clinician initiated lifeworld Survey
Diabetes
CHRONIC:
18 Cultural etiology: a
Hypertension, Clinician initiated lifeworld
traumatic/emotional event
Depression
Lifeworld and Explanatory Model Discussions (n=15)
CHRONIC:
1 Biomed etiology: eating “bad,”
Hypertension, Type II Lifeworld talk engaged: general
being fat, smoking
Diabetes
CHRONIC:
2 Lifeworld talk engaged: worries about
Hyperthyroidism, --
possibility of cancer
Depression
3 Lifeworld talk engaged: high expense of
CHRONIC: Hypertension --
medicines
CHRONIC: Type II
Lifeworld talk ignored (case study #2 in
4 Diabetes, High Biomed etiology: genetic,
ch 4): how diabetes impacts life, weak
cholesterol, overeating/eating “bad”
support network, joblessness
Hypertension
Mixed etiology
5 CHRONIC: Type II Lifeworld talk ignored: high expense of
Diabetes diabetes testing materials, joblessness Takes herbs and cactus for
diabetes
Mixed etiology: not following a
13 CHRONIC: Lifeworld talk engaged: life stresses,
clear schedule or order to life, not
Hyperthyroidism joblessness, impact of disease on life
eating
14 ACUTE:
Pt provides biomedical EM of rash Survey
Rash
15 Lifeworld talk engaged: life stresses, Mixed etiology: animals, dust,
CHRONIC: Asthma
money plants and hot/cold imbalance
20 ACUTE: La Gripa vs. Cultural etiology: hot/cold
Cultural lifeworld in encounter – EM
Allergies imbalance
21 CHRONIC: Infection vs. Cultural lifeworld in encounter – HIV Cultural etiology: hot/cold
HIV EM: cold infection, bone/bone imbalance
180
pain, then major distrust in biomedicine
Voice of Biomedicine
“unremarkable interview.” That is, these encounters took place entirely in the voice of
biomedicine and neither patient nor clinician ventured into the lifeworld. Most of these
set of three turns: the clinician asked a question, the patient responded, and the
clinician acknowledged/assessed the response and asked the next question. This format
allows the clinician to retain control of the topic of conversation. Patients in these
As with this example (encounter 26) and the other “unremarkable” encounters,
the clinician controlled the topic of conversation and freely changed topics when she
saw fit, even if the next topic lacked subject cohesion. In the example above, the
clinician asked numerous closed ended questions and then jumped from asking about
the patient’s nausea to asking if she could look up his nose in one turn. The nine
patients in this category did not attempt to bring up their lifeworld and also stayed in
Barry, et al. (2001) also studied the presence or absence of lifeworld talk and
found that almost one-third of patients and clinicians in their sample of 35 participated
in encounters that stayed strictly in the medical realm (i.e., no mention of the lifeworld).
These visits tended to be patients with acute problems and the patients or clinicians
perhaps wanted the medical visit to be as quick and efficient as possible. Interestingly,
182
patients who had this type of encounter gave the doctor the highest satisfaction rating
Congruent with these findings, all but one of the patients at the People’s Clinic
who participated in this type of encounter expressed satisfaction during the interview or
survey with the medical encounter.28 Most (6 of 9) were at the clinic for a chronic
they were introduced within the encounter discourse. Fifteen patients brought up
lifeworld issues in dialogue with the clinician. However, in six other encounters in which
the clinician tried to engage the patient in a lifeworld conversation, the patient did not
often portrayed as people who use strategies such as interruptions and closed-
questions to disengage from the patient’s lifeworld narratives (Mishler 1984; Waitzkin
Two male family nurse practitioners, Mr. Mills and Mr. Kendall, often asked
about the patients’ home lives, their families, and their jobs, as evidenced in the next
two examples. It frequently seemed they initiated these discussions to establish rapport
28
One patient expressed dissatisfaction for having to wait 2 hours to see the family nurse practitioner.
183
and to get a sense of their patients’ lives in general. Encounter eight shows that
184
For Mr. Mills, his lack of direct connection with patients because of the language
barrier led him to instigate informal conversations. He spoke about this connection
(FNP) saw a young female patient for an ear infection (encounter 11). 29 The girl’s
mother was also in the exam room; however, she did not speak English and the patient
acted as an interpreter for her mother. After Mr. Kendall examined and discussed
treatment for the ear infection, the patient’s mother prompted her daughter to inquire
about her wrist that had been hurting. Mr. Kendall asked what the mother did for a
living and she answered that she made tortillas at a local restaurant. Mr. Kendall asked
whether she could go to the local county hospital but the mother was undocumented,
was not a county resident, and thus did not qualify. He suggested several treatment
options and recommended that the mom speak with the clinic social worker to
determine if the mother could visit other clinics that had more advanced equipment
than the People’s Clinic. At the end of the encounter, Mr. Kendall talked to the young
patient about the importance of education and how education is linked to a better life,
29
Informed consent was received from both the 17 year old patient and her mother.
185
K=Mr. Kendall, FNP P=patient
K: Now listen. The reason everybody wants you to stay in school? And do
well in school? Is so you won’t end up making tortillas for a living.
P: [short laugh] ah-huh
K: Okay? Your mom doesn’t want you to do that.=
P: A-huh
K: =She wants you to go to college. She wants you to go to college, and buy
a house, and get insurance and so you don’t, you know. (.) So you’ll have
an easier life. [whispers] Okay?=
P: =Yeah=
K: =Really important.
P: Yeah
K: And all it takes is getting pregnant and then, you know, you’re going
down a different road.
[
P: Yeah [short laugh]
K: And so if you can avoid that, you’ll have an easier life. Okay, see ya, bye.
P: Bye
After Mr. Kendall left, the patient’s mother asked two times, “Que dice?” or
“What did he say?” The young patient did not translate the advice Mr. Kendall gave.
We might hypothesize that she was embarrassed at Mr. Kendall’s statements or felt he
had over stepped a boundary with his comments. Indeed, from this passage, Mr.
routinely talked to young people about studying hard, he spoke to parents at the local
elementary school about helping their children succeed in school, and he mentored one
local Mexican immigrant girl who volunteered at the clinic to help her graduate from
medicine: to establish rapport, to better understand the lives of their patients, and to
186
help them become successful individuals. Not all patients in this sample appeared to
want to talk with the clinician about their personal lives and perhaps felt as if he was
intruding in their personal space. For many encounters, it was the first time the patient
and clinician had met, and it is possible that the patients did not believe the clinician
care, a view that the patient is a partner in his or her treatment, may not be the desired
Lifeworld Discussions
Fifteen patients talked about their lifeworld or explanatory model with the
clinician; of these, six patients brought up lifeworld issues that included finances or
joblessness (encounters 3, 4, 5, 13, 15, 22). That is to say, the predominant themes in
their narratives were centered on their current financial or work situation and how
those circumstances affected their lives, families, and illnesses. For example, in the
following encounter (encounter 3) Mr. Mills (FNP) saw a patient from Columbia who had
hypertension. Mr. Mills told the patient he wanted to increase the dosage of the blood
pressure medicine. The patient then spoke to the promotora and she interpreted to Mr.
Mills:
P/I: He just wanted to let you know that a couple years ago he was taking
some kind of medicine from, he is from Columbia? And this medicine, it
was very expensive and he couldn’t afford it.
M: Okay. Mhmm, and so if you can’t afford it, what good is it, right? And, we
could find the best medicines, but if they are too expensive for people to
187
buy, then people aren’t going to buy them, so why, so we’re going to try
to find medicine that works for you.
Despite the fact that patients received medicine at the clinic pharmacy for free, Mr.
Mills discussed the high cost of pharmaceuticals in today’s health care climate and
reassured the patient that he would receive medicine that worked and was affordable.
lifeworld issues concerning finances and joblessness. For example, one female doctor
from a nearby hospital, Dr. Henry, who was not a regular volunteer at the clinic,
repeatedly mentioned throughout the encounter that the patient, Señora Vazquez,
should check her blood sugar at home. While this was not an abnormal request, most of
the patients at the People’s Clinic could not afford the necessary diabetes testing
materials, such as a glucometer and test strips. In this case (encounter 5), Señora
Vazquez told Dr. Henry that she and her husband lost their jobs recently and could not
Dr H: Mh. Does she, ah, does she check her blood sugar at home?
P/I: Se checkar su azucar en casa?
Do you check your sugar at home?
P: No, ya no tengo una machina.
No, I don’t have a machine.
P/I: No, she doesn’t have a machine.
[86 seconds later]
Dr H: And she can’t get a machine to check her (..) blood sugar?
P/I: Her husband recently lost his job and she is not working right now either.
Dr H: Well, it sounds like her blood sugar is getting low.
[100 seconds later]
Dr H: Okay, ideally she could check it every day for…[not translated]
[83 seconds later]
188
Dr H: M-kay. That’s why it’d be nice if we could get her to check her blood
sugar…[not translated]
Alternatively, the following example shows how Mr. Mills (FNP) responded to his
patient’s inability to afford diabetes test strips. The patient, Señor Garcia (encounter
22), was a second generation Mexican immigrant and this was his third visit to the clinic.
M: Good, good. Are you checking your sugar at home? I know in the past
you’ve had kind of a little bit of a chance to check your sugar at home.
P: I didn’t have a meter and ah, and the one that I had I never did use again
because I ran out of strips and-
[
M: Okay, yeah. Yeah, the strips are the
expensive part. You can always come here to get your sugar checked.
Later in the same visit, Sr. Garcia said that he lost his reading glasses and could
not replace them because of the cost. Mr. Mills recommended he see an eye doctor
and gave him information about a low cost doctor in the community, while also verbally
M: It’s a hundred dollars for the exam and glasses. So for everything and
um.
P: Okay.
M: With diabetes we want to make sure those blood vessels in your eye look
okay and so, you know. I’m not saying you need to do it, I know a
hundred bucks, I would have to go and look in my wallet to see if I could
spend that hundred right now. But you know, it can help, you might give
‘em a call anyway.
The differences between the responses from Dr. Henry and Mr. Mills are
apparent. Despite the fact that Sra. Vazquez lost her job and could not afford diabetes
189
testing materials, Dr. Henry seemingly did not consider her responses and repeatedly
mentioned that she should check her sugar every day. Interestingly, the last two times
the clinician repeated this, the promotora did not translate the doctor’s comments to
the patient, perhaps because she felt the doctor was not listening to the patient’s
circumstances.
Mr. Mills, on the other hand, asked about his patient’s job at the beginning of
the encounter and later, when Sr. Garcia said he could not afford the diabetes test
strips, Mr. Mills agreed that they were expensive and offered that he could come to the
clinic to test his blood. Mr. Mills also recommended that Sr. Garcia make an optometry
appointment because of his diabetes, provided information about a low cost clinic, and
indicated that while he knew it was expensive, it was important. During the post-
encounter interview with me, Sr. Garcia described how he was unable to see his
previous doctor and get medication for his diabetes because he did not have health
insurance.
P=patient R=researcher
P: Right, if your question started as why I came here in the first place, is
because I don’t have insurance. It’s too expensive where I work at and I
just can’t afford it on my pay.
R: I know, I don’t get insurance either at my job, luckily I’m a student and
can get it though the school, but otherwise.
P: Right and I also, I skipped a lot of doctor’s visits and medicine because of
that reason. I started getting real bad so I had to find another option. It
was through word of mouth that I found this clinic which is helping a lot
and I’m very grateful to be coming here.
190
Researchers hypothesize that clinicians have a difficult time acknowledging
patient’s narratives, especially those about poverty, because of a lack of experience and
training in dealing with certain social and political issues, such as poverty, environmental
pollution, or sexuality (Mishler 1984, Waitkin 1991). However, in two encounters when
the patient brought up these issues, the clinician went further than simply talking about
Señora Ruiz, a Mexican immigrant in her early 40’s, came to the clinic to refill her
thyroid medicine and to ask why her heart was racing (encounter 13). As the nursing
student was asking the patient’s history, she asked how everything was going at home.
The patient responded that her husband had a heart attack one month ago. After the
heart attack and subsequent stay at the hospital, her husband was fired from his job,
lost his health insurance, and had to seek follow up treatment at the county hospital.
When they missed the first appointment, her husband was told he could not make a
follow up appointment for three months. Thirty minutes into the encounter, Mr.
Kendall, the medical director and family nurse practitioner, joined the student nurse to
see Señora Ruiz. After he heard about her husband, he took action.
191
S: They were booked.
K: Yeah, well, whatever. Um, okay. Here’s the plan, okay? First of all, I
want you to come back tomorrow at one o’clock. You have an
appointment with Dr. [name]. Okay? And she’ll be able to, she’s smarter
than I am.
[P and S laugh]
K: And then, ah, um, and then the other thing is, we want to check your
husband today, want to check his blood pressure. But we also want you
to talk with Ms. Kendall[social worker] tomorrow, okay? This is very
important, she will be sure, this three months is not okay.
P: No.
K: So we’ll get Ms. Kendall [social worker] to help you on this, okay? So you
came to the right place today, you’re gonna have to come back
tomorrow, but you came to the right place today.
style makes it possible for the patient’s lifeworld to emerge. Because the student nurse
asked many open ended questions during the encounter and allowed the patient to
have control of the conversation, the patient told a story about her husband’s heart
attack and subsequent problems getting follow up care. Later, the social worker helped
Señor Ruiz make an earlier appointment with the county hospital out-patient clinic, and
or joblessness. In encounters where the clinician spoke with their patient about
finances, or directly tried to help the patient, knowing the local health care system,
other low-cost providers in the area, or having access to knowledgeable staff, such as
the social worker, may have helped clinicians discuss their patient’s financial situation
192
II. Cultural Worlds in the Medical Encounter
Explanatory Models
Explanatory models are simply ideas and preferences about the diagnosis,
etiology, and treatment that people believe about a specific illness or disease. Because
models are partly rooted in symbolic and tacit health belief systems, models are not
static and can lack coherence (Kleinman 1980). Kleinman described important
applications of this model to clinical medicine. “The study of the interaction between
practitioner explanatory models and patient explanatory models offers a more precise
Of the encounters observed and recorded for this research, half of the patients
introduced explanatory models, disease etiologies, or issues from their lifeworld during
the medical encounter. While six of these lifeworld discussions centered on poverty or
ethnomedical beliefs (i.e., explanatory models that varied from those of biomedicine).
The use of the word “cultural” does not imply that Western biomedicine is not also a
culturally created ethnomedicine (Gaines 1992a). The term “cultural difference” used in
this analysis represents the difference in health beliefs that are rooted in traditional
193
Two medical encounters described below were very different from each other:
one revolved around differences in disease etiology and treatment of la gripa, and the
other dealt with beliefs about the nature of AIDS and distrust of the biomedical system.
The first example in which cultural difference influenced the encounter was with
a 33 year old Mexican immigrant woman, Señora Rios (encounter 20). Señora Rios
asked for antibiotics for what she felt was a very strong infection (la gripa, a term which
means a bad cold or the flu); in fact Señora Rios said four times during the encounter
that she had an infection. Her symptoms of sore throat, coughing, and headache had
lasted two weeks. However, the family nurse practitioner, Mr. Mills, believed she had
severe allergies instead. Mr. Mills sensed that Señora Rios wanted antibiotics so he
spoke with her about the differences in allergies, colds, and influenza and the reasons
why clinicians do not want to prescribe antibiotics when there is no bacterial infection.
Mr. Mills offered this information using an illustrated anatomy book, and he drew a
model of how multi-drug resistant bacterial infections occur with unnecessary use of
antibiotics. The medical encounter lasted sixty-eight minutes, one of the longest I
observed.
Señora Rios did not appear to understand Mr. Mills’ explanations, possibly
because this information was relatively new to the interpreter who did a poor job of
interpreting, and partly because it conflicted with Señora Rios’ health belief that she had
an infection that required antibiotics. Señora Rios’ body language and lack of
194
communication following the explanation indicated that she was not satisfied with how
the encounter had unfolded. Mr. Mills invited the promotora to talk with him in a side
conversation.
M: So, and I know. So the more you.(..) She’s [the patient] not buying any of
this. She’s not buying anything I’m telling her is she? Um,
P: La tos?
The cough?
P/I: What about the cough? For the cough? Um, she’s gonna take
something? It looks like she wants medicine.
M: I know, I know, and I.
[8 seconds]
I’m trying to make the case to give her antibiotics but there’s nothing. I
mean, I’m trying. (….) We only have this pain and pressure here, so it
doesn’t sound like there’s a lot of infection here. So, let me ask you
because this is where, this is a great communicate on thing. Are you
getting the feeling, I mean, is she understanding about using antibiotics
or not? And do you get a feeling, my feeling that I’m getting from her is
to give her antibiotics.
P/I: Yeah that’s what I feel too because she’s saying like, she’s been thinking
like if I take antibiotics, you know? I will get better.
M: And then it will get better.
P/I: So she’s saying I don’t want to wait to take something to treat, if not
she’s gonna have to come back and she, she’s saying like I don’t want to
come back.
M: A-huh, a-huh. Okay.
P/I: My feeling.
M: So okay, that’s what I was feeling but I can’t.
P/I: I know.
There are two reasons for highlighting this excerpt. First, it is interesting that
Mr. Mills invited the promotora, as someone who may better understand the patient’s
feelings, to discuss the situation, thus placing her in several roles. Initially, the
promotora acted as an interpreter. Mr. Mills’ side conversation then placed her in the
195
role of culture broker rather than a strict interpreter. In a third role, the promotora,
recognizing Señora Rios’ desire for antibiotics, advocated for these twice when she
asked Mr. Mills, “What about the cough?...She’s gonna take something? It looks like she
wants medicine.” And “…she’s been thinking like if I take antibiotics, you know? I will
get better.”
Second, in this excerpt Mr. Mills verbalized his frustration about his inability to
directly and clearly communicate with Señora Rios. He may have realized that the
information he provided was not satisfactory because the patient had different
ethnomedical beliefs about the presence of an infection and the appropriate treatment
to cure the infection. At this point in the encounter, Mr. Mills decided to negotiate a
treatment plan to incorporate both sets of beliefs; he gave Señora Rios allergy medicine
to try for three to four days, but he also provided antibiotics if the allergy medicine did
not work. Mr. Mills obviously felt this encounter was unsatisfactory for Señora Rios and
196
M: And that’s why, that’s my, and that’s why I’m feeling a lot of this is
happening and that, and to tell you the truth, just taking antibiotics won’t
do anything for your allergies.
P/I: Obviamente tomando antibioticos no ayuda con la [unintelligible], okay?
Obviously taking antibiotics won’t help with [unintelligible], okay?
[P cough]
P: Ay, xx xx [P cough] xx [P cough]
M: It’s okay, your lungs are clear. So let me go and get that medicine for you.
I’m so sorry. Don’t, I, I hope you won’t ah,
[=
P: It’s okay, it’s okay.
M: I hope you don’t take it personally from me, I was just, you know what
I’m trying to do, but we worked out a way, right?
In my post-encounter interview with Señora Rios, she expressed that she had a
very strong infection that was caused by drinking a cold coke when it was warm outside.
She had been examined by a different clinician at the People’s Clinic on a previous visit
for the same symptoms. He had given her Penicillin. Señora Rios said she wanted to see
the same clinician because she felt he had done a good job and had given her
appropriate medicine. Señora Rios said that she was not satisfied with this clinician,
even though, ultimately, she received antibiotics, because he did not seem to notice
that she had an infection. Likewise, Mr. Mills articulated frustration in the pharmacy.
He was unable to “connect” or communicate with the patient, yet, he gave her
The second example was with a 54 year old Mexican immigrant woman, Señora
Moreno who disagreed with her positive AIDS test (encounter 21). Señora Moreno had
visited the clinic a year before. She was told at that time that her lab test results were
197
positive for HIV. However, at this visit, she used a different name and was seen as a
new patient. Thus, the student nurse did not know that she had AIDS until later in the
encounter.
At this visit, Señora Moreno had several sores on her face, ears, and mouth. She
believed the sores were caused by an exposure to a cold surface and the cold weather,
and not related to the AIDS virus. The excerpt below occurred before the woman’s
S: Is there a pattern to when she’s getting these sores? Like um, is there
anything that she’s doing that brings them, any triggers? That she is
aware of?
P/I: No está cuándo le salen, no está haciendo algo que puede ser la causa?
When they come, are you doing anything that you think might be the
cause?
P: Yo pienso que es por el frío porque yo cuando me resfríaba era por las
paredes de la escuela, yo pienso que es por el frío.
I think it might be the cold because when I got cold it was because of the
school’s walls, I think it’s because of the cold.
P/I: ¿Por el frío?
From the cold?
P: Si por el frío.
Yes, from the cold.
P/I: She thinks it’s because of the cold.
S: The cold? Where she works?
P/I: ¿Trabaja?
Do you work?
P: No, sí trabajo pero eso fue aquí en la escuela cuando fui a traer a los
niños a la escuela. Estaba muy frío ahí en la pared y duramos como media
hora en la pared y estaba bien fría.(…) Yo pienso que es por el frío.
No, I do work but it was at school when I went to get the kids from school.
It was very cold on the wall and we were standing like half an hour on the
wall and I was cold.(…) I think it’s because of the cold.
P/I: She thinks it’s because of the cold.
S: Okay.
198
During the physical examination, Señora Moreno explained that the sores were an
In Señora Moreno’s explanatory model, she described that the sores happened
because she was outside in the cold for some time waiting for her children to get out of
school. The cold from the school wall she was leaning on radiated out to her, which
then caused infection, the sores, and bone pain. The student nurse did not respond to
the patient’s explanatory model, indicating that the symptoms started because of the
cold.
While the patient’s history was being taken, the lead promotora came into the
room twice for different tasks. In hindsight, the promotora was checking on the
patient’s identity. Soon thereafter, about 30 minutes into the encounter, the medical
199
director, Mr. Kendall, entered the room with the lead promotora and confronted Señora
Moreno with her real name and situation. The clinicians and promotora tried to
persuade her to go to the county hospital AIDS outpatient program. Señora Moreno
repeatedly voiced distrust with the biomedical system and said that doctors were often
wrong; she pointed out cases in which friends or family members were told they had
Señora Moreno so distrusted blood/lab tests and doctors that, in the next
example, she also said that her husband was diagnosed with AIDS, but he did not have
it. In the next utterance she repeated again that her husband was told he had diabetes
when another test indicated that he did not. It was not clear whether her husband had
two wrong tests, one for AIDS and another for diabetes; whether she was confused
30
Various city agencies hold periodic health fairs where the community can receive free health screenings.
200
about the diseases; or whether, in the midst of the charged back and forth exchanges
between clinicians and patient, she misspoke and said “AIDS” when she meant
“diabetes.”
P: Si, si, si, si. Este a mi esposo no le digo y también a otra señora creían
que eso tenía, tenía SIDA, pero él no tenia SIDA, tenía esto de aquí en la
garganta. Y mi esposo también el doctor le quería dar la medicina. En
esta clínica de aquí, una que está por aquí.
Yes, yes, yes, yes. Well I’m telling you is my husband, and also this other
lady they thought that that was what he had, AIDS, but he did not have
AIDS, he had this thing here in his throat. And the doctor also wanted to
give my husband the medicine. In this clinic here, one that is close
around.
P/I: L[clinic]?
P: A-huh. Dice tú “tiene diabetes” dice mi esposo “pero no tengo
diabetes.”“Y vas a tomar la medicina,” y “no, no me la tomo porque no
tengo diabetes” y fue mi esposo con los bomberos y le dijo chequéeme
mi sangre porque me están afirmando que tengo diabetes y le dicen no
tienes diabetes.
A-huh. They said “you have diabetes” and my husband said “but I don’t
have diabetes.” “And you will take the medicine”, and “No, I will not take
it because I don’t have diabetes” and it was my husband went to the
firemen and told them to check his blood and “they tell me that I have
diabetes” and they tell him that he doesn’t.
P/I: Si usted dice que no lo tiene vaya al P[county hospital] a que le hagan
otros estudios, no pierde nada.
If you say you don’t have it, go to P[county hospital] so that they can do
other analyses, you have nothing to lose.
P: Pues si, porque como ledigo mucha gente ha ido con los doctores y el
doctor le ha dicho a mi esposo tienes que tomarte la medicina.
Well I do, because I have told you a lot of people have gone to the doctors
and they have told my husband that he has to take the medicine.
For 17 minutes Mr. Kendall and the promotora spoke with Señora Moreno about
HIV/AIDS and transmission. They recommended that she talk with her husband and
family about it as well as other medical facilities where she seeks treatment. The
201
encounter ended with Señora Moreno twice asking for medicine to help the sores and
Mr. Kendall explaining both times that the sores were from the HIV virus, and that she
Señora Moreno repeatedly denied that she had AIDS, and, based on her
comments and demeanor, it seemed highly unlikely that she was going to follow up with
the outpatient program. While she was obviously motivated to seek treatment for her
sores, she was not going to accept a diagnosis of AIDS. Señora Moreno’s distrust could
have been compounded by not having a sustained relationship with a clinician whom
she trusted and who was familiar with her case. Because of this situation, my interview
was brief and did not follow the interview schedule. However, Señora Moreno again
Señora Moreno left hurriedly after the nursing student gave her printed
information in Spanish about the skin lesions, the disease in general, and coping
strategies. In the afternoon debriefing meeting, the nursing student verbalized to her
202
classmates and Mr. Kendall that she was frustrated about the encounter and wished she
These two encounters were the only ones of the thirty observed and recorded in
which patients voiced information in the medical encounter that was “cultural” and
fundamentally different from biomedicine; both patients and clinicians had different
beliefs about what was wrong and what the course of treatment should be. Clearly,
when differences appeared in these two examples, all participants were dissatisfied,
and, miscommunication was apparent. Thus, these encounters are classified as negative
However, it would be incorrect to deduce that the other 28 patients did not have
ethnomedical beliefs that were different from those of the clinicians’ simply because
they were not voiced during the encounter. The post-encounter interviews illustrate
that some patients who had satisfactory or “successful” medical encounters also had
cultural differences in the etiology or treatments of their conditions that were not
While with clinicians, patients mostly talked about lifeworld issues that focused
on personal problems and money concerns. On the other hand, during the post-
The decisions people make about their illness largely depend on their
understanding of the etiology, or cause, of the illness (Sobo 2009). Because of this
7. What do you think causes [illness]? How did you get [illness]?
8. What other treatments have you tried to help with [illness]?
I did not organize etiologies with regards to previous anthropological classification, such
interviews (21 patients completed an interview; the other nine completed a survey).
or cultural etiology.
Biomedical Etiology
Of the 17 patients who spoke with me about the cause of their illnesses, eight
patients (47%) gave a strictly biomedical explanation. Señor Hernandez, from the first
case study in Chapter four, described an etiology of type II diabetes in which the
204
P: No come entonces todos el páncreas le pasa azúcar al cuerpo cuando
pasa hambre. Son muchas las [unintelligible] y el páncreas ya no puede
con toda el azúcar que tiene acaparada aquí. Así me dijo el doctor y yo
creo que sí.
If you don’t eat, then the pancreas provides the body with sugar when
you’re hungry. There are many [unintelligible] and the pancreas can no
longer stand all the sugar it has stored. That’s what the doctor told me
and I think that’s it.
Most patients with diabetes described a disease etiology that included the
pancreas and sugar production although as with Señor Hernandez, the answers were
vague and often incomplete. Other answers included behavioral causes such as
generally eating non-nutritional foods, smoking, and not taking good care of his or her
health. Señora Lopez, on the other hand, discussed how diabetes “runs in her family,” a
genetic explanation:
R=researcher P=patient
205
Mixed Etiology
etiologies. In this example, a woman from Mexico (encounter 12) described how her
This patient recalled that most people feel that diabetes is caused by tensions
and worries, but that once she came to the clinic, she was told that diabetes is caused
by the pancreas not working correctly. She incorporated the clinic’s biomedical
206
knowledge into her understanding of diabetes and said she believed that both
Cultural Etiology
etiology in their entirety. There was no pattern related to patient diagnosis and a
culturally different disease etiology, though three of the four had a chronic disease (see
table 4.1). Cultural explanations ranged from theories about hot-cold imbalance and
stress to susto.
Two people thought they became ill because of a thermal imbalance. The
following excerpt is from the interview with Señora Rios (encounter 20) discussed above
whose belief about her severe infection (la gripa) was at odds with the clinician’s belief
R: Um, how do you think you got the illness? What caused it?
P/I: Que lo que causo.
What caused it?
P: Um. (5) Pienso, bueno? X xx nada yo le xx [ininteligible]
Um, I think, well? Xxx[ininteligible]
P/I: She thinks that she drank a very cold coke when she was hot. So.
R: mhmm.
P/I: Last week. And that started the cough. And then everything else came
from the cough.
Redfield (1934) and George Foster (1994) contends that all foods, herbs, and some
other substances (such as iron) have a temperate as well as metaphoric value of “hot”
207
and “cold.” As with the etiology example above for la gripa and the woman who was
HIV positive, some patients believed illnesses can be caused by hot or cold insults to the
body that upset the body’s equilibrium. Therapies for the most part tend to conform to
the “principle of opposites” so that a cold remedy works best for a hot illness and vice
revolved around thermal imbalances of the body being unusually hot, often from the
Texas heat, and ingesting something cold, therefore putting the body at risk. Foster
(1994) also found from his extensive research in Mexico that the thermal temperature
of food or drink is cited more frequently as a factor leading to illness than the
metaphoric value. In the example above, the patient was hot outside and drank a cold
coke, thereby disturbing her natural balance which put her at risk for illness. The cold
drink caused the cough which led to la gripa (the flu or bad cold), an infection that
required antibiotics.
caused their illness. One person from the 30 interviews spoke of this etiology
(encounter 18), which was common throughout my two years of research at the clinic.
208
Well now I think about this that you talk to me about, I had her child [her
daughter’s child] and I came to leave them and I cried a lot, I think that is
why I fell sick.
In other words, the patient believed that her deeply felt emotion at leaving her
Other people had similar explanations that involved a specific instance of fright
or deeply felt emotion. One afternoon, two nursing students, a promotora and I went
to visit Señora Torres, a 77 year old woman who lived alone in the back of a house with
no running water. She suffered from uncontrolled diabetes with blood sugar over 500.
She explained that her diabetes was caused by a specific life event that was very
upsetting.
I asked Señora Torres if other people in her family have diabetes. She said one
son, who was in jail, and her sisters and brothers all had diabetes. I asked what
she thought caused her diabetes. She said her anger and emotions. She said
that someone killed her husband and son and since then she’s had diabetes.
N[promotora] told me that a lot of people in Mexico believe that emotions or
anger cause disease. [field notes 8-29-07]
Susto is most often described as a sickness that results from fright and is
1985). As described in the literature, susto is due to a startling event that may cause
part of the self or soul to separate from the body. Upsetting situations may also cause
susto (Rubel, et al. 1987). Although none of the participants in this study specifically
said that susto caused their illness, they described personal traumatizing events that
they believed triggered their illnesses or made their body more susceptible to illness.
Participants could not explain why or how the event caused the illness; a traumatic
209
event was simply a factor in the development of the illness. Several medical
anthropologists and researchers from the medical community report similar findings,
i.e., that Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants connect the cause of type II
diabetes to a traumatic event or series of events (e.g., Hunt, et al. 1998; Poss and
Jezewski 2002).
Treatment Preferences
The second area related to patients’ explanatory models discussed during the
interview was their preferences about treatments. I asked four questions specific to
treatment preferences:
Nineteen of the thirty patients were diagnosed with chronic diseases such as
type II diabetes, high cholesterol, or hypertension. Each of these patients was taking at
least one prescribed oral medication. All patients with a chronic disease reported
during the post-encounter interview that they were satisfied with the prescription
medicine they were taking and they believed the medicine was helping.
Nine patients were diagnosed with type II diabetes; of these, three (33%,
encounters 5, 12, 22) also talked about taking some form of cactus in conjunction with
their medicine. Two of these patients had stopped taking the cactus because they said
it did not help them feel better. One man who was diagnosed with depression said he
took herbal remedies in the past but had stopped them because they did not help his
210
feelings of sadness and anxiety (encounter 27). In the encounter below (12), the
patient described the reasons why she took dry cactus to help with her diabetes.
R: What else have you um, tried to help with the diabetes?
P/I: ¿Qué ha tratado usted de actividades por la diabetes?
What activities have you tried for the diabetes?
P: Ah, un tiempo tome una, es coma una yerba seca que me mandaron de
México.
Ah, for some time I took a, it’s like a dry herb that they sent from Mexico.
P/I: Ah, for a very long time she was taking some kind of um, herb, natural
herb from Mexico.
R: Herb, a-huh. What was it?
P/I: Cómo se llama?
What’s it called?
P: Es como si fuera um, jicama seca, así cortadita en trocitos pero es bien
amarga. Viene seco.
It’s like as if it was um, dry jicama, cut in bits, but it’s very bitter. It comes
dry.
P/I: Viene seco, okay.
It’s dry, okay.
It’s like some kind of I don’t know, jicama. It comes dry, okay.
R: Jicama, a-huh.
P/I: Very dry, so that it looks like,
P: Yo le decía que con lo amargo, eso decian en México que con lo amargo
se bajaba el azúcar y yo me lo tomé mucho tiempo.
I was telling you that with the bitterness, so they said in Mexico that with
the bitterness the sugar would go down and I took it for a long time.
R: Okay, are you still taking the jicama?
P/I: ¿Todavía está tomando la jicama?
Are you still taking the jicama?
P: No. [laughs]
R: No.
P: No, porque no se me quitó nada. [laughs]
No, because nothing happened.
Similar to the illness model for a hot-cold imbalance, this patient described how
a bitter herbal treatment was said to cure her diabetes, an illness that is caused by too
211
much sugar. Whereas a relatively small number of participants spoke about using
alternative therapies such as herbs or cactus to treat diabetes, other researchers have
found that the number of Mexican immigrant participants who used “home remedies”
outcome of the illness, were not as fully discussed with all patient participants
compared to comments about their illness etiology and treatment preferences. Patients
who had a chronic illness talked about behavior changes that they knew were important
but were difficult to strictly adhere to, such as regular exercise or a special diet. Several
patients brought up that during the course of their work day, they were on their feet
and that should “count” as their exercise, or that they could not fix special meals when
they were the only ones in the family who required a healthy option.
Patients with diabetes, in particular, told stories of friends and family members
who had suffered from diabetes and eventually died from complications associated with
diabetes. These stories made the reality of the disease very stark and scary for them
and served as personal reminders of what might happen. When talking about loved
ones who had died from diabetes, though, patients did not attribute blame. That is,
they refrained from commenting whether death was just an inevitable progression of
the disease, or if these loved ones did not do enough to control their diabetes.
212
Patients who described a “mixed” etiology of cultural and biomedical beliefs, or
those who augmented their biomedical oral medications with herbal treatments,
indicate fluid movements between traditional and Western ethnomedicines. This data
supports the view of pluralistic explanatory models of disease as patients talked about
traditional and mixed etiologies of their illness and four spoke about herbal treatments
(Leslie 1980, Poss and Jezewski 2002). These patients, while having more traditional
beliefs about their illness, also are regular patients in a biomedical clinic and take
This research also contradicts prior assumptions that people would not utilize
“modern” health care if they suffered from an illness believed to be caused by “cultural”
agents (Pelto, Bentley, and Pelto 1990). Many participants had multiple etiologies and
ideas in their explanatory model and most were influenced by the biomedical model.
When people move across borders, either within Mexico, or from Mexico to the U.S.,
their traditional illness models may undergo transformations as they encounter new
especially true for patients with chronic illnesses that require periodic medical visits in
which the patients are likely to receive reinforcing information about Western
biomedicine.
surprising how little is known about their knowledge, beliefs, practices, preventative
213
measures, and treatment preferences towards the disease. According to a national
whites to be diagnosed with type II diabetes. They have higher rates of end-stage renal
disease, caused by diabetes, and they are 50% more likely to die from type II diabetes as
practices for Mexican immigrants who suffer from diabetes, as well as other illnesses.
IV. Discussion
interview,” meaning there was no lifeworld talk. All but one patient reported
• Six followed a pattern not typically found in the medical literature, a pattern I
about the patient’s life. In most instances, patients did not engage by talking
conversations were engaged by the clinician and three were ignored. Six
31
http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=3324 accessed 3/2010
214
patients focused their lifeworld conversation on finances or joblessness; in two
Clearly this examination indicates that patients share lifeworld narratives in the
medical encounter to a greater degree than some medical research suggests (Mishler
finances and joblessness, socio-economic issues rather than cultural differences. This
data further show that when patients and clinicians have discordant cultural
backgrounds or speak different languages, an automatic “cultural barrier” does not exist
as many cultural competence models assume, even when patient’s health beliefs are
beliefs per se. The focus is centered on the information vocalized in the medical
encounter and how participants grapple with the issues that are communicated during
the encounter.
materialized, both encounters were problematic and unsatisfactory for the clinician and
patient. The post-encounter interview data show that other patients had cultural
differences in ethnomedical beliefs, but these patients did not speak about these beliefs
with the clinician. Their encounters were satisfactory and their expectations were met.
215
Thus, in these cases it is not cultural differences in isolation that are problematic, but
The question becomes, whys some patients who had cultural differences related
to disease etiology or treatment preferences vocalized those differences and some did
not. Additionally, how did the clinician respond to the differences in health beliefs and
how might other strategies facilitate a mutually acceptable treatment plan? The next
Barry and colleagues (2000, 2001, 2002) help add a new lens from which we can analyze
this data. A relatively new concept in the medical communication literature is that of
patient agendas. An agenda includes the reasons the patient came to the encounter
and it encompasses the patient’s concerns, emotional and social issues, diagnostic
ideas, illness fears, and expectations (Barry, et al. 2000). The concept of patient agenda
is similar to the explanatory model concept but it encompasses the specific goals of
what the patient wants to happen from this specific medical encounter. Barry, et al.
(2000, 2001) research revealed that patients in general practice had several agenda
items (5+), or specific reasons for being at a clinic, but they did not voice their full
agendas in the medical visit. When they did, patients often voiced agenda items that
were in the biomedical realm; social and emotional topics were the most difficult and
216
This present study also examined patient agendas as a means to triangulate and
compare the patient’s primary goals of coming to the clinic to what was observed during
the encounter. The post-encounter interview focused on three specific questions aimed
The answers to these questions provided information that was compared to the
patients’ lifeworld narratives during the clinical encounters to determine whether or not
there was a relationship between the two. This comparison finds that all but three
lifeworld narratives were related to the patient’s agenda. The majority of patients
brought up lifeworld issues when 1) their lifeworld intersected with their agenda, and 2)
The telling of a lifeworld narrative, then, does more than bring the human
element to the encounter, a patient’s feelings and experiences. Lifeworld narratives can
function as a communication strategy that allows patients to voice their knowledge and
polite and deferent way for patients to exercise power over the encounter (Ainsworth-
Vaughn 1998). For example, in the first case study from chapter four, Señor Hernandez
discussed lifeworld narratives that dealt with treatments he did not want to have for his
217
arthritic knee. He told these stories because one of his agenda items, reported to me
during the interview, was to get his knee examined and treated.
Thus, the research points to several hypotheses. First, patients who held
culturally different health beliefs about their illness, but did not talk about them in the
encounters, did not do so because their health beliefs were not associated with their
specific agenda for that visit. In two encounters, for example, the lifeworld issue that
beliefs. In short, the woman with la gripa came to the clinic to secure antibiotics for her
illness, an illness that was caused, she believed, by drinking a cold coke on a hot day.
She did not believe, as Mr. Mills did, that she had allergies. Thus, she vocalized her
health beliefs, that she needed antibiotics, because they intersected with her agenda.
Other hypotheses about why more narratives did not contain culturally different
health beliefs include: 1) financial issues were more pressing than culturally different
health beliefs for patients, 2) most of the patients with cultural health beliefs also had
explanatory models that incorporated biomedical treatment, and 3) patients did not
discuss their health beliefs for fear of being criticized; they have learned what not to say
to clinicians. This last hypothesis may be less valid at the People’s Clinic because
patients said, over and over, that they trusted this clinic and the promotoras who
worked there. In fact, they recommended this clinic to their neighbors and family.
moment, by each participant. Participants may have intended to talk about a particular
218
issue, but decided not to; or there may have been no communicative space to do so.
The concept of patient agendas helps to recognize the function of lifeworld narratives
and improve our understanding of why certain lifeworld narratives may have been
are encouraged to elicit and discuss their patients’ health beliefs and explanatory
models (see Chapter three for an overview of these theories). The data from this
clinicians pose challenges for both patient and clinician in a medical encounter. Two
dissatisfaction for clinician and patient alike and hindered the patient’s agenda from
What were the strategies used by participants in these two encounters and
satisfaction? Both clinicians asked detailed and open ended questions. Both female
patients provided their explanatory models of la gripa (severe infection, like the flu) and
sores/infection, respectively, and believed that a thermal imbalance caused their illness,
although the woman with la gripa did not overtly verbalize this in the medical
encounter. Both clinicians provided their respective explanatory models of allergies and
HIV.
219
However, in both encounters, after patients stated their health beliefs, the
the first example, Mr. Mills believed the patient to have allergies, but he realized that
the patient believed she had an infection and wanted antibiotics. Mr. Mills engaged in a
side conversation with the promotora to confirm that the patient “wasn’t buying any of
it.” He then attempted to educate the woman by providing information about bacterial
infections, viral infections, and allergies. He talked about the dangers of using
antibiotics when they were not medically necessary and even drew several diagrams
about multidrug resistance. Likewise, with the HIV positive patient, the clinicians
In both instances, the patient did not understand the educational information
nor believe what the clinician said to be true. In the first example, after hearing the
information, the patient told the clinician, “Okay I don’t understand everything you have
told. I just want something to make me better, I don’t want to return with a cough.” In
the second example, the woman with HIV denied several times that she had HIV and
repeatedly said she did not trust the U.S. medical system. Thus, an educational
approach on “correct” health beliefs was not a successful strategy in either situation.
clinician and patient to allow clinicians to talk with their patients about health beliefs.
Increasingly, it is only used to elicit the patient’s model without engaging in a dialogue
about both models and how they may overlap (McNees 2001). Clinicians can be
220
challenged by their patients’ cultural and health beliefs coupled with the belief that
their own biomedical knowledge is more correct, factual, and rational. “The underlying
and Arar 2001: 350).Therefore, even when clinicians ask patients about their knowledge
and health beliefs, these beliefs are often viewed as “misconceptions” with the need on
What was missing from both encounters was a conversation and negotiation
about health beliefs with a view that they could both be valid. Mr. Mills never asked the
female patient with la gripa, “Why do you think you have an infection that needs
antibiotics?” Or, “What caused your infection?” Similarly, the clinicians who saw the
woman with HIV did not get to the root of her beliefs and her distrust with the U.S.
medical system.
As in the first cultural example, even after Mr. Mills negotiated a treatment plan
that included antibiotics which should have been acceptable to the patient, the patient
reported in the interview that she was not satisfied because she felt Mr. Mills should
have seen that she had an infection and trusted her feelings. Instead of “education” in
these situations, this data suggests it may be more effective for clinicians and patients
to discuss a common view of the illness and a treatment plan that is possible and
221
Summary
depression, etc. They have written extensively about Central and South American
cultures, customs, healing beliefs and practices, and their ethnomedicines (for example,
Foster 1953, 1994; Rubel 1960; Kiev 1968; Ingham 1969; Clark 1970; Garro 1986; Finkler
2004). The early work of Foster (1953), Rubel (1960), Clark (1970) and others moved
medicine and low utilization rates of biomedicine among immigrants and minorities
(Browner 1994).
study looked at the next obvious question: what happens when explanatory models of
strategies, alone, sufficient to engage both patient and clinician in discussion that results
The results documented in this chapter detail the type of information patients
and clinicians share during a medical encounter, as well as the role that lifeworld
narratives can play to introduce patient agenda items. It also demonstrates that cultural
differences in health beliefs, while present between patients and clinicians, only
222
surfaced in two of thirty encounters. Despite the importance and role of health beliefs
clinicians elicited these responses, they did not know how to use the cultural
information they obtained. They did not know how to move beyond this phase to a
The next chapter will introduce the third primary participant, the interpreter, or
promotora. Chapter six highlights the various roles that the promotoras held at the
clinic, the communication processes that fostered accurate interpretations, and how
223
Chapter Six: Medical Interpreting
Research has associated language barriers with the increased potential for
misdiagnoses and inappropriate treatment, the need for repeat visits, inadequate
informed consent, and dissatisfaction in the quality of communication and care among
patients and clinicians, among other outcomes (Elderkin-Thompson, et al. 2001; Flores,
et al. 2003; Simon, et al. 2004; Dysart-Gale 2005). Interpreters are often perceived as
This chapter brings attention to the clinic promotora and interpreter, her
relationship within the encounter, and her roles at the clinic. Medical interpreters
the fact that the uniquely powerful role of an interpreter is situated at the juncture of
negotiation and exchange, little has been said about the linguistic and social role of
interviewed either clinicians, or interpreters, or patients (e.g., Kline, et al. 1980; Baker,
224
et al. 1996; Baker, Hayes, and Fortier 1998; O'Leary, Federico, and Hampers 2003).
Inclusion of all three groups permitted a triangulated view of the issues and concerns
facing the primary participants in bilingual medical encounters. This research was
conducted to answer such questions as, what is the role of medical interpreters and
how are they trained? How do interpreters shape the course and outcome of a medical
visit? What is the relationship between clinicians and interpreters? Responses to these
Accuracy, completeness, and impartiality are among the standards most often
cited as the ethical pillars of professional medical interpreting (Cross Cultural Health
Care Program; National Council on Interpreting in Health Care 2005 32). Generally
respect these three interlocking standards. These challenges include, among others:
medical) phrases, idioms, metaphors, and other language formations from being
that are phonetically and otherwise very dissimilar to one another, such as
and ‘patient-talk’ (Shuy 1974; Mishler 1984). The former is often arcane and
32
http://www.ncihc.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=57768andorgId=ncihc, accessed 3/2010
225
rooted in clinical concerns, while the latter is reflective of the patient’s everyday
3) Normative differences between patients and/or families who do not share the
biomedical notions about truth telling and the right to know, the need to treat,
and other moral and ethical assumptions. These and other differences can
other health care interactions (Kaufert and O'Neil 1990; Simon, et al. 2003).
speaking, Caucasian clinician and a Spanish-speaking, Mexican patient will likely need to
encounter will entail different communicative norms than in monolingual talk, for
Many professional codes of ethics and medical institutions in the U.S. place
heavy emphasis on the notion that interpreters should function merely as conduits, or
faithful echoers, of the information flowing between clinician and patient. As scholars
have suggested, this view of the interpreter’s role is rooted in a distinctly American, as
well as Western, model of information flow (Kaufert and Koolage 1984; Dysart-Gale
2005). In this view, information travels in a linear fashion, moving between senders and
226
receivers, with the interpreter serving as a “conversion point” in the transmission
process. Critics of this model have emphasized that it does not take into account the
fact that mere conversion would leave much information unintelligible given the
discursive, cultural, and other differences evident among health care senders and
receivers (Haffner 1992; Dysart-Gale 2005). The conduit model and its mechanistic
Accordingly, some researchers have sought to broaden the interpreter’s role and
(Kaufert and Koolage 1984; Erzinger 1991; Haffner 1992; Dysart-Gale 2005). The
potential merits of broadening the interpreter’s role to include these and other
functions include enhanced understanding on the part of the patient and clinician,
interpreters. Cultural brokerage on the part of interpreters can also play a key part in
the world where biomedicine is not necessarily the first and most trusted health care
227
II. The Role of Promotoras at the Clinic
Three years prior to my entry, the People’s Clinic hired promotoras, or lay female
immigrant population. During my two years of observation, there were three core
promotoras, including one “lead promotora,” and two to three promotoras who worked
for a few months before quitting or being fired. The promotoras were all single mothers
who had high school educations. All but one was a first generation Mexican immigrant.
promotoras were often the “face” of the clinic: they were the first ones to greet
patients; they took the patient’s vital signs and then later interpreted for the patient;
and the promotoras, because of clinic outreach activities in the neighborhood and at the
two local elementary schools, were often known within the community as health
workers.
The significant and strong connection of promotoras to the clinic became clear at
one of the clinic fundraising luncheons. The lead promotora, Nina, was asked to give
Nina stood up at the front of the room and began to read the prepared
paragraph that she had written. Then, as she was nearing the conclusion of her
remarks, she looked up and folded the paper. She tried to speak, but her voice
shook. She was obviously emotional. She held her hand out to Mr. Kendall
(clinic medical director) who was sitting nearby and motioned for him to stand
next to her. She held his hand for support and said, “When I first came here, it
228
was as a patient. They helped me so much when I had nowhere else to go.
When I see the people coming in here, they see Louisa and I and they know they
have found a place to trust. They don’t have anywhere else to go…” She started
crying. Then Louisa, another promotora started crying; a man at my table began
to tear up, as were some people sitting behind me. It was a powerful moment,
not only for Nina, but for those in the audience, i.e., potential donors to the
clinic. [field notes 1-19-07]
As Nina’s story illustrates, the promotoras, because they were from the local
community and were also first generation Mexican immigrants who faced similar
hardships, represented familiar faces to patients, faces that fostered trust. During an
interview, one family nurse practitioner described this connection as a “comfort” factor:
During the interview Mary told me that many times she tried to communicate in
Spanish but the patient didn’t understand even though she was saying the words
correctly. Then, when the promotora came into the room and said the exact
same thing, the patient understood. I asked Mary what she thought was
happening. She said, “…I think it’s a comfort thing. When you’re sick and you
are vulnerable, you need a connection. Sometimes we can’t be that
connection.” [family nurse practitioner interview]
Thus, promotoras not only interpreted the clinicians’ words, but were viewed as
a connective force or familiar agents for the Mexican immigrant patient population.
Promotoras as Advocate
Promotoras acted as advocates for patients at the clinic as well as for people
who needed help obtaining healthcare outside the clinic. Examples have been shared
promotora advocating for antibiotics for a patient. Some instances of advocacy helped
patients receive health care they otherwise would not have received. The following is
229
an example of how promotoras acted as an advocate when helping a patient who did
Nina, the lead promotora, told me about a confused elderly woman who came to
the clinic. The woman brought a letter addressed to the county hospital, written
by a ministry clinic a few miles away. The letter provided health information
about the woman and asked for an appointment as soon as possible; she had
cervical cancer with an increase in vaginal bleeding in the last few months.
However, it was evident to Nina that this woman did not know where she was
and what she was doing. Eventually Nina drove the woman to her home so that
she could see if the woman lived with family members. Nina helped the woman
gather required documents to apply for the county hospital “insurance” card.
Ms. Kendall, the clinic social worker, called the hospital and eventually, after
speaking to several people including a doctor about the seriousness of the
situation, made the woman an appointment for the next week. [field notes 9-14-
06]
This woman, who was later confirmed as mentally disabled, was sent from a
local ministry clinic to the large county hospital with only a letter detailing her medical
history. Once Nina realized the woman did not have the mental capacity to secure the
required documents, complete the forms, and make an appointment at the county
hospital, she guided the woman through this process and acted as her interpreter and
advocate by accompanying her to all the appointments for treatment of her cervical
cancer. Nina was not financially reimbursed for this work, but over the course of my
research at the clinic Nina helped several older women in similar situations. She once
told me that she hoped someone would do the same, for example, if her grandmother
were in need.
230
Promotoras as Culture-Broker
The culture-broker role was not as obvious and prevalent as the other roles held
by promotoras held, possibly because cultural differences did not surface in the medical
following example, the family nurse practitioner (FNP)/midwife was seeing a 31 year old
Mexican woman for a follow up visit. The patient’s test results from her prior exam
The FNP frankly told the patient that she had Chlamydia and explained the
disease, as well as the fact that it was treatable. She asked the patient if she had
any sexual partners other than her husband and the patient replied, “no.” The
patient mentioned that she didn’t know if she could tell her husband because
when she told him she had a pelvic exam he got mad and asked what she did
that she needed that exam. The FNP reinforced that she needed to talk to her
husband because she could be treated, but if they didn’t use a condom [patient
shook her head at this] and he didn’t get treated, then the patient could be re-
infected again, which may cause infertility. The patient asked another question
and the FNP said, “The question she should be asking is if she wants to be
married to someone who is sleeping with other women.” Before the promotora
translated this, the FNP asked her a couple of times, “Is that a culturally
appropriate thing to say?”and the promotora said “yes.”[field notes 11-2-06]
often to explain a traditional herbal remedy such as taking cactus for diabetes or how to
say something in a culturally appropriate way. Noticeably, during the two encounters
that contained differences in cultural health beliefs, discussed in Chapter five, the
promotoras did not step outside their interpreter role to act as a culture-broker.
231
Promotoras as Educator
A forth role that promotoras performed was one of educators. Since the
promotoras’ job duties included providing basic health care information to patients,
such as signs of hypo- and hyperglycemia (high and low blood sugar level), they often
spoke with patients informally about their illness and treatment. During one medical
encounter I observed, the clinician stepped out of the room for a few minutes and the
promotora and patient discussed the patient’s life and his diabetes.
After the clinician left, Louisa and the patient started talking about the patient’s
job. He was a painter from El Salvador and worked in Mississippi on new houses
being built. He comes back here to see his family every six weeks. Then the
patient asked a question about his diabetes medication and Louisa told him how
to take his medicine and that it was really important. He said that his mother
died from diabetes and then said that his priest told him he was cured from
diabetes and didn’t have to take medicine anymore. Louisa told him there were
two kinds of help, one from God and one from medicine. Then the clinician came
back in the room and they stopped talking. [field notes 10-12-06]
had difficulty providing formal education. Most times clinicians had to prompt
promotoras to speak with the patient on a certain subject. The clinician might say, “Be
one of the responsible team members for implementing a type II diabetes intervention
program, I never observed them reviewing a program lesson with a patient who had
diabetes.
Several times the medical director, Mr. Kendall, asked my advice about how to
encourage promotoras to take more responsibility for patient education and patient
232
well-being. He wanted to move their responsibilities from interpreting and taking vital
hoped my observations of the clinic could help him find a way to instill a sense of
Observations indicated that a primary reason for this lack of ownership was that
no training was provided for promotoras. They were not required to have formal
training in medical interpreting nor did the free clinic offer formal training. This lack of
training seemed to exacerbate their already unclear job roles and responsibilities.
Training could have instilled a sense of ownership and responsibility across their roles
and solidified their accountability in each role. A training program may also have helped
ensure quality and accurate interpreting, and fostered increased clinician trust in the
promotoras, an issue that each clinician spoke about in his or her interview.
Promotora as Para-Clinician
Finally, some promotoras took on the role of para-clinician (Davidson 2000). This
occurred when the promotora gave her own medical advice, added or omitted a
patient’s medical history or symptoms to the clinician, or took over the role of the
clinician. While I never observed an encounter in which the promotora gave her own
advice, two clinicians remarked on the role during their interviews. The pediatric nurse
practitioner (PNP) explained that she did not mind when the promotora gave medially
sound advice, but thought it inappropriate when the advice was incorrect.
233
PNP: …I’ve actually heard the interpreter give misinformation. Ah, just not
saying what I had just said, throwing in a bit of her own advice, which was
inappropriate for the patient.
R: If she had given good advice would that have bothered you?
PNP: No, no good advice does not bother me.
R: So it’s not that she said something different from what you said.
PNP: No, I don’t need to be interpreted literally. But I don’t want to hear, she
was recommending Vicks Vapor Rub, which you do not want to use on
children because it has camphor in it which is a poison. She just threw
that in, her own personal advice. Now it’s fine if it weren’t something I
would never ever advocate or recommend it because toxicities are so
different for children and adults.
encounters with nursing students. Because nursing students were still learning the
women familiar with the routine nature of questions, sometimes controlled the medical
encounter. The following example occurred in the waiting room; the young patient and
her mother were the first people in line to see the clinician, and a student nurse was
The patient was a one year old girl and she had been crying for over 15 minutes
in the waiting room. The nursing student did not know what to do. Finally, after
a couple of minutes, the student asked the mother if she had given the patient
anything for her fever. The mother responded that she had given the child
Motrin two hours ago. Then the promotora started asking her own questions in
Spanish: how was the cough, was it productive, what color was the phlegm, how
long had the patient had the fever. Then the promotora told the student the
answers. When the student finally took over this role, she asked her questions,
but looked at the promotora for guidance. [field notes 11-2-06]
expertise. While this role may be acceptable for some clinicians, as with the pediatric
nurse practitioner above, other clinicians may chafe at this intervention if the
234
interpreter’s actions are not transparent. Regardless of the promotora’s medical
knowledge, her usurping of the clinician’s role might lead to clinician distrust.
issues they are concerned about in interpreted encounters (Abbe, et al. 2006). Because
frequency and kinds of errors interpreters make (Davidson 2000, 2001; Elderkin-
Thompson, et al. 2001; Flores, et al. 2003). In fact, many variables can affect the
clinician level of training and competence, nature of the environment, duration of the
particularly important as clinicians often use medical jargon and/or speak in lengthy
However, the analysis for this research project was not as concerned about the
frequency of translational errors made by participants (since this type of data may only
be helpful for the specific participants involved in that specific encounter) as which
factors correlated with inaccurate interpreting. This information would be more useful
to a broader audience. The following data represents the major types of translational
errors that participants made and the communicative context surrounding the error.
235
Clinicians as Interpreters
Many errors occurred when monolingual clinicians did not use a promotora
during the entirety of the encounter. For example, some nursing students began the
medical encounter without a promotora present or they dismissed the promotora after
the history taking part of the encounter was over, thus having no interpreter during the
time the physical exam was conducted. Regardless of the reason for dismissing the
promotora, when she was not in the room, the encounter suffered from errors or
incomplete patient medical histories and information about the chief-complaint. When
the clinician tried to “make do” with his or her Spanish skills, the patients did not speak
dialogue. The following example occurred after the nursing student dismissed the
promotora.
The male patient complained of stomach pain and told the nurse he thought he
had a parasite infection. After the physical exam, the nursing student handed
him a plastic cup with a lid. The patient asked, "Excremento?" (Excrement?) and
the student said, “Si.” (Yes) He repeated "Excremento?" and again the student
said, “Si.” Even though the student might have learned the value of using
interpreters if I had not intervened, I quickly said, "No, orinar, solamente orinar"
(No, urinate, urinate only). [field notes 2-27-07]
During their interviews following the medical encounter, patients spoke about
the lack of interpreters, usually at health facilities other than the People’s Clinic. Some
patients discussed situations in which interpreters were not available and they did not
understand the clinician, or that because there was not an interpreter, they were turned
away from seeing a clinician. In general, patients preferred clinicians who spoke
236
Spanish, but all patients said they were satisfied if they had interpreters to help them
communicate.
False Fluency
A second type of situation which led to errors in interpretation was when the
promotora lacked the knowledge necessary to interpret. Two promotoras who were
hired during the period of my research simply did not have the required medical
language fluency in Spanish or English to interpret accurately. Because there was not a
formal training process, these promotoras were hired and began working despite their
lack of knowledge. As there was not a formal review process of promotoras’ abilities,
several months might pass before complaints accumulated by clinicians. The following
example demonstrates the confusion that ensues when the promotora does not know
The female patient had a lot of pain in different places and the two nurses were
visibly frustrated with her vague symptoms; they talked to each other, saying
that her pain did not make sense. One reason for their frustration was that
Cindy, the promotora , did not translate words correctly. For example, when the
nurse examined the patient’s lower abdomen, the patient said that it hurt. The
nurse followed up by asking, “Does she still have her uterus?” Cindy hesitated,
and instead of asking about the patient’s uterus, she asked if the patient had
stomach pain. The woman said yes, she did have stomach pains, she had
gastritis. Cindy responded to the clinician, “Yes.” The nurse asked if the patient
had been vomiting or having diarrhea and if so, for how long. Cindy asked the
patient how long had she had gastritis and the patient answered for three years.
Cindy told the nurse “Yes, for 3 years.” [field notes 10-26-06]
In this example, Cindy was clearly not fluent in medical terminology. Her errors
moved the focus from the patient’s uterus to her stomach, and told the nurses that the
patient had been vomiting or having diarrhea for three years. In actuality, the patient
237
really said she had gastritis for three years. However, neither nurse paused to clarify
this contradiction, nor were they listening to what was being translated.
Many clinicians told me that because they were concerned about accuracy, they
monitored and listened closely to what the interpreter said in Spanish even if they were
not familiar with the language. Some Spanish words are similar to their English
strategy clinicians employed was to listen for congruence in the length of talk between
what they said and what the promotora said. In the following example, the clinician
repeatedly listened to the Spanish translation and frequently questioned and corrected
238
The promotora translated the patient’s illness as a cold and sinus when the
patient had said allergies. The clinician was familiar enough with the Spanish words and
questioned the promotora. Later in the same encounter, the clinician told the patient
that because she had high blood pressure she needed to be careful when taking over-
FNP: Tell her, because she has high blood pressure, she needs to be careful
and not take decongestants because that can raise her blood pressure.
P/I: Dice que tiene que cuidar ah,
She says you have to be careful ah,
How do you say that?
FNP: Decongestant. Like Sudafed, especially.
P/I: How do you say that in Spanish?
FNP: Or like, ah, like Tylenol cold and allergy.
P/I: No mas como el Tylenol es para la gripa, sí se puede, pero tiene que tener
mucho cuidado con la otra pastilla porque se le puede subir también la
presión.
You know how like Tylenol is for the cold, you can, but you have to be very
careful with the other pill because it can increase your blood pressure.
P: Oh.
P/I: Puede tomar el Tylenol.
You can take the Tylenol.
The patient, who was on medicine for hypertension, was cautioned by the
clinician to avoid over-the-counter decongestants that could raise her blood pressure.
However, the promotora was not familiar with the term “decongestant” and asked the
clinician twice to clarify the word. Instead of defining decongestant, the clinician gave
two popular examples that were known to raise blood pressure, Sudafed or Tylenol Cold
and Allergy. The promotora did not double check her understanding with the clinician
239
and made a potentially serious clinical error when she told the patient that Tylenol Cold
Omissions
Errors of omission occurred when promotoras did not fully translate words,
phrases, or whole sentences that were spoken. Typically, information was omitted by a
promotora for three common reasons. First, promotoras omitted information when
they either did not understand the information or they felt it did not add value to or
detract from the dialogue. In this example the promotora omitted information from the
N: Okay, can you ask her how long has she had the bunions on her feet.
P/I: ¿Hace cuánto tiempo que tiene lo de los pies?
How long have you had that on your feet?
P: Ya tengo como un año.
It’s been close to a year.
P/I: For a year.
P: Además que me duele mucho estar así.
Also, it hurts a lot to be like this.
N: And are they getting bigger and bigger too?
[
P: Pienso que por los zapatos.
I think it may be the shoes.
P/I: ¿Se están haciendo más grande?
Are they growing bigger?
P: mhmm
In this example, the promotora omitted the patient’s symptoms that her bunions
are painful and that she believed them to be caused by her shoes. In context, the
240
interpreter may have felt that the symptoms did not add to or detract from the
dialogue.
Omissions also have the potential to change the quality or texture of talk. The
promotora in the next example excluded the clinician’s apology for the time the patient
had to wait. This patient waited over an hour in the exam room and his responses
throughout the encounter were very curt and abrupt. Had the patient heard the
apology he may have been more participatory and satisfied with his visit (encounter 26).
FNP: Okay, Mr. [last name]. I’m [name], I’m the nurse practitioner here. I’m
sorry you had to wait so long. Uh, nevertheless. Okay. Can you have a
seat up here?
P/I: Tome asiento.
Have a seat.
sentences at once without pausing for the promotora to interpret. At the end of one
encounter, the nursing student gave the patient new medicine for her diabetes and
dyslipidemia (high cholesterol). However, because she spoke several sentences at once
and used medical jargon, such as dyslipidemia, the promotora omitted the instructions
for how to take both medicines as well as other important information (encounter 19).
S: And this is Actos, and this is one pill, one time a day. And for these, can
you tell her to look for if she’s having some signs of dizziness or light
headedness, or like her heart starts pounding or something, it’s called
hypoglycemia? It means her blood sugar is getting too low and to drink
some orange juice or have some candy, something like that.
P/I: Si se marea o si le duele la cabeza, dice que tome como jugo de naranja o
un dulce que es lo mismo de las medicinas, porque le está bajando.
241
If you get dizzy or you get a headache, she says that you should take an
orange juice, or a candy, which is the same as the medicine because it’s
going down.
S: Okay, um, this Tricor, where is this one, okay, this one is for her
dyslipidemia. She needs, the important one about this is one pill one
time a day. The important one about the Tricor? This one has side
effects of nausea and vomiting and diarrhea? So can you tell her.
P/I: Esta tiene efectos secundarios de nauseas, diarreas o vómitos.
This one has nausea, diarrhea, and vomit as side effects.
Again, the promotora gave incomplete information and did not explain to the patient
how and when to take her medications, potentially causing a clinical error.
that did not signal a “patient communication” code, such as “teaching” codes or “talking
to oneself” codes. These are known as “frames,” which are mental cognitive structures
surrounding a piece of discourse marked by pitch, register, and nonverbal cues which
allow the hearer to make sense of the information (Tannen and Wallat 1986, 1987).
Because many encounters included student nurses and family nurse practitioners, they
frequently spoke with one another about the patient’s symptoms or illness in a
“teaching” code. The manner and style in which they spoke to each other, often facing
or looking at each other, while using medical jargon, signaled to the promotora not to
the information back to the patient. In the following example, a male patient came to
242
the clinic for his lab results. A family nurse practitioner (FNP), nursing student,
Both nurses were speaking at once making it difficult for the promotora to
translate. The nurses did not know why the patient was sent for a blood test at
his prior visit, if there was a specific reason. The nursing student asked the
patient if he knew why he was sent for labs and he said no. The FNP and student
reviewed the lab results and the FNP told the student that the results ruled out
anemia and high cholesterol. But this was not translated to the patient because
it was said in “teaching code.” The FNP then dismissed the promotora and
conducted the physical exam. She put the stethoscope up to his chest and said
in English, “breathe deeply.” The patient did not know what to do. She
continued the physical exam in English. The two nurses left the room without
saying anything to the patient. The patient then asked me, “Was there anything
wrong with my labs?” [field notes 10-12-06]
became apparent when a professional interpreter volunteered one day at the clinic.
while studying for the U.S. bar exam, brought attention to these kinds of omissions. A
family nurse practitioner (FNP), nursing student, volunteer interpreter, and I were in the
room.
The FNP told the nursing student that the patient’s diabetes was under control.
He opened her chart and talked with the student about the patient’s urine
analysis and said that her weight loss helped her blood sugar level. The new
interpreter asked, “Should I translate that?” and the FNP said “Yes.” At the end
of the encounter, the FNP instructed the student to review the symptoms of
hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) since the patient had lost weight and was doing
really well. Again, the interpreter asked if she should translate that and the FNP
responded positively. [field notes 1-12-07]
Thus, when a trained interpreter was faced with dialogue spoken in a different frame,
she clarified with the clinician whether she was supposed to translate that dialogue
243
rather than omitting it. The trained interpreter likely was introduced to national codes
of professional ethics that stressed that interpreters need to interpret all and only what
was said (Cross Cultural Health Care Program; National Council on Interpreting in Health
Care 2005).
promotora and clinician was unclear or not defined and defaulted to a hierarchical one
with clinicians having the higher status and authority. Even when promotoras were
uncertain of how to translate jargon or when the clinician spoke several sentences at
once, promotoras did not follow up to clarify or ask the clinician to slow down and
repeat what was said. This could be due to a lack of training about the mechanics of the
interpretive process coupled with the fact that their role was perceived as less powerful
than the role of clinician. The higher status of the clinician, though, tended to place the
(Abbe, et al. 2006). Trust is the degree to which clinicians, interpreters, and patients
believe in and rely on each other’s actions. Transparency refers to the level of
transparency.
Nursing students, who were often unfamiliar with using interpreters in general,
and especially these specific promotoras, reported experiencing a greater lack of trust
between themselves and promotoras. Nursing students reported that this lack of trust
was primarily caused because they did not receive training on how to work with
interpreters in school or at other medical facilities where they were employed. One
nursing student said she could tolerate minor inaccuracies as long as the promotora
communicated the “big picture.” In her interview she said, “I have a trust problem with
interpreters. Are they really saying what I am saying? It’s okay as long as the big picture
was conveyed.”
On the other hand, clinicians who had an established working relationship with
the promotoras, such as the family nurse practitioners, had greater trust. For example,
one family nurse practitioner who volunteered weekly mentioned that trust in a
promotora was something that came with time and repeated exposure between the
two.
Mr. Mills mentioned by name the two promotoras he trusted a “great deal.”
When I asked why, he said that since they worked together frequently, these
two promotoras both knew his next question or utterance almost before he
spoke it and he trusted them because he had confidence that they both knew
what they were doing. However, he said that sometimes he wanted to tell the
patient something in a certain way and he was unsure of the manner in which
the promotoras said things on their own. [interview with Mr. Mills, FNP]
245
Mr. Mills’ comments in the interview highlighted two main themes related to
trust and transparency. First, as specific clinicians and promotoras worked together,
they learned and became familiar with the other person’s style and even their routine
dialogue. In the following example, Mr. Mills and Louisa, who worked together often,
In this example, the information flow was facilitated by Mr. Mills speaking in
short phrases and partial sentences (“the blood pressure”…“is 158 over 78”…“what
we’d like to see”). Since Mr. Mills and Louisa had frequently worked together, she was
familiar with his educational style and what he tended to say when a patient’s blood
pressure was elevated. In these instances, Louisa began her translation usually after the
Louisa often used simultaneous interpreting when working with Mr. Mills, and
Mr. Mills complimented this style with his short, jargon-free phrases. Simultaneous
because it keeps the focus on the patient and clinician (Hsieh 2010). Mr. Mills did not
interrupt Louisa and he waited until she was finished translating to speak his next
phrase.
sometimes wanted to tell a patient something in a particular way and he was unsure of
the degree to which promotoras said things on their own. Some clinicians, when they
247
wanted patients to hear information in a certain way, monitored the promotora’s words
Dr=Doctor P/I=promotora/interpreter
Dr: Okay, I want to examine her, I want to make sure while I have you and
we’re sort of on a roll, that she understands that we’re probably going to
put her on some medicine to relax the blood pressure.
P/I: Te van a ponerle si la medicina para baja la pression.
She’s going to give you medicine to lower the pressure.
Dr: Okay, and use the words relax the blood pressure.
interpreting outside the encounter, they rarely engaged in a dialogue with the
promotora about the process of interpreting. I observed only four occasions out of 90 in
which the clinician instructed the promotora, as with the example above, or initiated a
discussion about the interpreting process. For example, prior to the encounter, one
nursing student told a promotora with whom she had not worked with before, “I’m
going to talk and look directly to the patient and you translate what I say.”
Thus, in order to facilitate transparency, the data show that instruction from the
clinicians and promotoras, prior or during the encounter, may result in a more positive
encounter. Accuracy and completeness may be enhanced if a clinician stated, “This next
part may be a little difficult to understand. Let me know if I need to repeat something,”
or if participants requested a back-translation such as, “Could you please repeat what
you just said.” Further, interpreters could be more transparent by explaining to the
clinician or patient when they have altered or culturally brokered messages to promote
248
This level of transparency may help alleviate some of the tension around the
contradictory expectations that are placed on interpreters, and may advance better
priorities, and preferences. For patients, a transparency rule or norm could increase
patient involvement and sense of control. In short, clinicians and interpreters could
themselves.
Teamwork
The communication processes that facilitated accuracy and trust occurred when
clinicians and promotoras worked as a team. For example, Louisa (promotora) and Mr.
checking can make the encounter a bit longer, it is a strategy used to verify that the
clinician correctly heard and understood the patient’s comment or answer. For
example:
FNP: Okay, okay. When was the last time you took your medicine?
P/I: La última vez que toma medicina.
The last time you took the medicine.
P: Hoy, en la mañana.
Today, in the morning.
[ [
P/I: Today in the morning.
[ [
FNP: Today Okay. (3 seconds)
Okay, um you took ‘em this morning.
P/I: Se la tomó esta mañana, ¿verdad?
You took it this morning, right?
249
P: Sí.
Yes.
Mr. Mills asked the patient when he last took his medicine and the patient
responded that he took them today, in the morning. In his next turn to speak, when Mr.
Mills could have asked another question, instead he used back-channel listening cues of
“today” and “okay,” and double-checked what he heard with a statement, “Okay, um
you took ‘em this morning.”Instead of answering Mr. Mills’ question with, “Yes,” Louisa
translated the question back to the patient who confirmed, yes. This pattern continued
throughout the encounter where Mr. Mills rephrased what he heard and Louisa
A few times the clinician and promotora engaged in a side conversation to clarify
with each other what was occurring in the encounter. Chapter five provides an
excellent example in which Mr. Mills stopped the encounter to speak with the
In a second example, Mr. Mills was treating a male patient who was diagnosed
with depression and anxiety. The patient had not taken his antidepressant medication
for five months. This was the first time Mr. Mills, Elena (the promotora), and the patient
had met. My observation notes of the visit commented on their body language: “Mr.
Mills sat about two feet in front of the patient facing him with his hands in his lap,
focused on the patient. Elena also sat close to patient so that she, the patient, and Mr.
Mills made a triangle.” This physical positioning elevated the promotora to a full
member, and equal partner, in the dialogue rather than a less visible member.
250
After talking about the patient’s symptoms of anxiety and depression, Mr. Mills
asked a question with the goal of determining whether or not the patient was
did not translate well so Mr. Mills and Elena discussed it.
FNP: Let’s see and you’ve never had any, have you had any feelings of ah,
seeing something that you know wasn’t there or hearing something that
nobody else could hear?
P/I: Usted tiende a sentir que alguien le estaba hablando o-
You tend to feel that someone is talking or-
[
P: Sí, a veces si me pasa eso.
Yes, sometimes it happens.
P/I: Sometimes.
FNP: Sometimes. Can you tell me about that a little bit?
P/I: ¿Le puede explicar eso un poquito?
Can you explain that a bit?
P: Como el dice como que no se, como que oigo cosas así nada que ver que
yo no sé no por qué.
Like he says, like I don’t know, like I hear things that have nothing to do
with anything, I don’t know why.
P/I: ¿Cómo qué es lo que oye?
What is it like what you hear?
P: Oh, como no se como.
Oh, like I don’t know.
P/I: ¿Que alguien le está hablando, que alguien le está diciendo algo?
That someone is talking, that someone is telling you something?
P: Sí como que se me viene a la mente como que yo he estado viendo eso
pero no pero no sé por qué.
Yes, it like comes to my mind like I have been seeing this but I don’t know
why.
P/I: ¿Pensamientos, palabras?
Thoughts, words?
P: Algo así.
Something like that.
P/I: Como que alguien le está hablando.
Like someone is talking.
P: mhmm
251
P/I: Like somebody else is telling him something, like thoughts.
FNP: Okay, and do you, do you, does it sound like you’re hearing voices?
P/I: Usted escucha voces?
Do you hear voices?
P: Dentro de la mente, dentro de la mente y se me olvida después.
Inside my head, inside my head and then I forget.
P/I: He thinks he forgets about it.
FNP: Okay, what do, when you hear those things, what are they saying to you?
P/I: Cuando usted escucha esas cosas, ¿qué es lo que le están diciendo?
When you hear these things, what are they saying?
P: Escucho tantas cosas [short laugh]. Como que deberías hacer esto o ya lo
hiciste o cosas así pero no se ni por qué.
I hear so many things. Like you should have done this or you did or things
like that but I don’t even know why.
P/I: Cosas que debiste hacer eso y no lo has hecho, ¿cosas así?
Things that you should have done and you haven’t, things like that?
P: Sí, habla así.
Yes, like that.
P/I: He wants to explain it. He’s like saying that he’s thinking that x. He had to
do it, but he don’t feel like doing it but the voices are telling him he needs
to.
FNP: Okay, okay and so E[promotora], it sounds like it’s hard with the
translation to say, is it like a voice that he hears? Or is it his, him telling
himself. You know what I’m saying?
P/I: Okay, yes, okay.
Es una voz que usted escucha que le está diciendo o usted mismo se lo
está diciendo?
Is it a voice that you hear that is telling you or is it you telling yourself?
P: No, es como yo mismo, que es la gente más bien.
No, it’s like myself, that it’s like people rather.
P/I: It’s like himself.
FNP: It’s himself. Okay, okay, gotcha.
Prior research indicates that interpreted psychiatric visits in particular may prove
the most difficult for all participants due to the sensitive nature of the interview, the
that a large part of the actual “exam” relies on verbal communication (Klein, et al. 1980,
252
Marcos and Trujillo 1981, Putsch 1985, Diaz-Duque 1989). Additionally, there are
serious questions about the applicability of Western mental health diagnoses cross-
Mr. Mills asked the patient a standard psychiatric question, phrased in a specific
way, but the meaning of the question did not necessarily translate well into Spanish (see
Compounding the situation, the promotora did not provide a translation of the patient’s
comments to the clinician; for the majority of the excerpt, the patient and promotora
spoke together without including the clinician. This lack of transparency, even in an
encounter in which the clinician and interpreter usually worked well together, may be
why Mr. Mills paused and asked the promotora to clarify both his meaning and what
In summary, clinicians reported that accuracy and trust was a main concern
having conversations about the interpreting process may help participants with these
both are responsible for accurate interpretations may also lead to better patient care.
IV. Discussion
familiarity, their presence portrayed trustworthiness to patients; they also were culture-
were not always fulfilled in the manner expected and desired. A lack of training also
clinicians and patients were not taught how to work in an intercultural space nor were
they experienced in working with interpreters. This lack of training for all participants
was one of the most critical weaknesses in the clinic’s efforts to understand and utilize
Other key factors that disrupted the seamless provision of language services
within the People’s Clinic are various types of errors that occurred in interpretation, and
clinicians were unfamiliar with interpreted encounters, or had not often worked with a
specific promotora, they felt distrustful of the promotora and situation. This distrust
was often compounded by the low level of transparency in participant actions and roles.
However, with repeated exposure to one another, clinicians seemed to gain trust in the
promotora’s ability to provide accurate interpretations. The data also suggests that
and engaged in actions that fostered teamwork, trust deepened and accuracy increased.
Robert Putsch’s quote at the beginning of this chapter is instructive about the
ways in which interpreters are viewed in medicine and research. He ascribed extreme
254
power to medical interpreters and described them as those who “hold the keys to the
entire process” (see also Davidson 2000, 2001). New research, however, has emerged
that alters this notion of interpreter as institutional gatekeeper. Despite the smattering
of linguistic errors attributed solely to interpreters in the literature, scholars have begun
Recent proposals call for a bilingual communication that need not be based on
models that rely on interpreters to be conduits (interpreting all and only what is said) or
culture- brokers. Rather, a dynamic view of language interpretation allows for the
possibility that the models play a complementary role (Dysart-Gale 2005). The working
understanding of both the communicative and interpretive dynamics that play out in
bilingual clinical consultations (Elderkin-Thompson, et al. 2001; Jacobs and Goldin 2002;
Dysart-Gale 2005). The final excerpts in this chapter, specifically the ways participants
Besides these recommendations, the data imply the need for a “rule of
transparency,” which could be a way of making the interpretive process more visible
and explicit by encouraging participants, for example, to confer about the meaning and
substance of messages either before they are communicated, afterwards, or before and
after (Avery 2001; Elderkin-Thompson, et al. 2001; Abbe, et al. 2006).A short debriefing
interpreters have had little or no prior opportunity to work together and get to know
255
one another’s communicative styles, skill levels, and preferences. This interactive
process has several potential benefits, including increasing interpretive accuracy and
more actively, and bringing to the fore the clinician’s shared responsibility for effective
study reported that more than 50% of medical residents received no training regarding
how to work with interpreters (Hsieh 2010). This data also suggests that training
programs for promotoras, clinicians, and patients may help participants adapt their
communication strategies and manage situations in which they suspect inaccuracies due
to a lack of transparency.
256
Chapter Seven: Conclusion
I. Summary
Mexican immigrants. The research sought to answer broad questions about how
or cultural difference between clinicians and patients. All interpreters in this study were
the day-to-day functioning of the clinic, as well as the planned structure of the
environment in order to facilitate the needs of the primary population. For example, a
social worker met with all patients and made appointments for them at other medical
facilities, if needed. Further, she helped patients apply for governmental assistance,
Observation of the nursing community clinical program yielded data about how
nursing students were taught to be aware of the specific socio-cultural, economic, and
health issues of this patient population. A variety of activities, such as direct patient
257
outreach activities, and afternoon debriefing meetings with the clinical preceptor,
helped students recognize the various factors that affect health and illness. Nursing
students often spoke about how much they learned from a hands-on pedagogy at the
four illustrated how clinicians, patients, and interpreters fulfilled their sociolinguistic
roles of receiving and providing health care. Specifically, the case studies revealed the
made from the information shared within the encounter and negotiated between
patient and clinician, sometimes including the interpreter; methods used to exercise
Two case studies were representative of the fifteen other encounters in which
patients shared information from their lifeworlds. In the first example, the clinician
encouraged the patient’s narrative to unfold during the encounter. In the second, the
patient spoke frequently about her lifeworld concerns, but the clinician primarily
controlled the amount and type of information that patients shared. In cross-cultural
encounters, these narratives, as linguistic forms for expressing experiences that lay
outside of the biomedical space, arguably are especially important. Because illnesses
are saturated with cultural, social, moral, and physical meanings, clinicians must
258
understand the nature and impact of the illness on the patient and his or her family in
Chapter five was informed by the use of the theoretical tools and concepts from
the case studies in Chapter four and applied them to the 30 encounters that were
observed and recorded. Half of patients (n=15) discussed their lifeworld and/or
suggesting that clinicians, to a greater extent than previously reported, recognized the
importance of including the patients’ experiences, feelings, and beliefs in their medical
treatment (for example, Mishler 1984; Tuckett, et al. 1985; Ainsworth-Vaughn 1998).
examination of treatment with immigrant and minority groups, this research explored
the role of culture in a medical interaction and the strategies clinicians used to be
culturally competent. Chapter five examined the type of information patients and
differences between the clinician’s and the patient’s explanatory models could be a
primary locale for such cultural barriers to emerge (Kleinman 1980; Chavez, et al.
1995;Browner, et al. 2003; Betancourt 2004; Fitzgerald, et al. 2005; Rosenberg, et al.
259
2005; Hasnain-Wynia 2006; Haidet, et al. 2008). In analyzing patient narratives in the
medical encounter during this research, two patients out of 30 voiced cultural health
beliefs that differed from the clinician’s biomedical beliefs. In these two cases, cultural
differences may have caused “barriers” to treatment as both patients and clinicians
However, most of the patients spoke with the clinician about joblessness and
financial difficulties rather than stereotypical cultural health beliefs. During the post-
encounter interviews, patients shared information from their explanatory models that
were not shared during the medical encounter. Almost 1/3 of patients (n=9) discussed
and treatments of their illnesses (such as the use of cactus for diabetes). Most of these
patients had “successful” medical encounters that were satisfactory and their
expectations were met. Thus, although patients held cultural health beliefs that
differed from biomedicine, they did not discuss these beliefs with the clinician, and the
This data holds important information for cultural competence models, training
260
II. Theoretical Contributions
researchers run the risk of missing the cultural fabric and broader environment from
which communicative actions are made meaningful. As Hymes eloquently stated, “…it is
not linguistics, but ethnography – not language, but communication – which must
provide the frame of reference within which the place of language in culture and society
research is that conclusions are drawn from an observation of an encounter at one point
in time, one visit between patient and clinician. Repeated observation of clinicians over
the course of 120 patient encounters in this study served to show how communication
strategies are nuanced, and co-created within the particularities of the medical
circumstances.
upon, and extends past scholarship. It is best to begin this summary reflection with Eliot
261
Mishler’s articulation of the importance of patient lifeworld narratives in a medical
by the work of Foucault (1973), Kleinman (1978), Habermas (1984) and others,
portrayed biomedicine and its practitioners as agents whose medical gaze fully focuses
on the disease, objectifying and decontextualizing the patient and his or her everyday
experiences. Within this view, actions are driven by success, which is defined by
scientific and technical considerations, not moral ones. Language becomes the primary
mechanism for achieving success and the speaker may use deception or distorted
the voice of the lifeworld and the voice of biomedicine, actions need to be negotiated
coercion.
medicine, one more focused on the patient, such as patient-centered care or narrative-
stating that current biomedical practice was inhumane and inefficient (1984: 192). An
inhumane individual is unfeeling and without compassion for suffering and Mishler
Drawing directly from Kleinman’s explanatory model theory (1978, 1980) and
narrative theory (Kleinman 1988; Fisher and Groce 1990; Hyden 1997; Garro and
262
Mattingly 2000; Mattingly 2000), I sought to articulate how immigrant patients might
utilize narratives to convey to the clinician important information from their lifeworld.
subjectivities and were aware of the patient-as-person and the factors that influenced
their health and illness, such as work, family, and structural barriers. Furthermore,
clinicians in this sample used communication strategies, such as asking multiple open-
ended questions, to inquire about patients’ lifeworld experiences. The patients in this
sample shared information from their lifeworld to a greater extent than some research
Still, a number of patients did not conform to previous models. They did not
discuss information from their lifeworld with the clinician, even when the clinician
initiated such a discussion. Patients who did not enter into this space with the clinician
may have felt an intrusion into their privacy. Foucauldian notions of power and control
may shed light into these actions; an expansion of biomedicine into the patient’s
everyday world signals further surveillance of biomedicine into the social and cultural
body (Foucault 1973, 1975). As health and health care become commodities in the
biomedical system, doctors serve as the providers and patients are the consumers.
Biomedicine, then, is not just any bureaucracy and profession, “…it is a leading
Thus, the six patients who did not engage with the clinician in lifeworld discourse may
have felt that discussing lifeworld discourse was unnecessary and inappropriate.
263
While I can infer the importance of lifeworld narratives, this research cannot link
the presence or absence of patient lifeworld narratives to patient outcomes, like patient
compliance or satisfaction. The majority of patients reported satisfaction with the clinic
and their treatment, regardless of happened during the encounter. Rao, et al. (2000)
reported that patients were more satisfied when doctors asked about their expectations
for the visit and for treatment and incorporated expectations in their clinical actions. In
a different study, researchers discovered that patient-centered care was associated with
improved health status (less discomfort, less concern, and better mental health) and
increased efficiency of care (fewer diagnostic tests and referrals) (Stewart, et al. 2000).
This research suggests that patients who talked about their lifeworlds used those
Narratives often functioned as a way to not only bring the human element to the
appropriate way. In some instances, talking about lifeworld concerns helped the patient
get assistance from clinicians for their problem. For example, the female patient who
came in because her heart was racing finally discussed with the nursing student the fact
that her husband lost his job after his heart attack and that they were having trouble
obtaining follow up care and medication. The nursing student and clinic medical
director treated her husband and made him a follow up appointment at the county
hospital.
264
Finally, this research expands our knowledge of the role of culture and cultural
difference in medical encounters. As discussed above, the fact that patients had
different health beliefs from clinicians did not automatically cause barriers to treatment.
Barriers were created when patient agendas (to secure an antibiotic, for example), or
reasons for being at the clinic, were different from the clinician’s treatment decision.
For example, in the two encounters that represented a barrier to healthcare, the
female patients had different health beliefs that directly influenced their treatment
preferences for their respective infections. Interestingly, in these two cases, the
clinicians elicited the patients’ explanatory model, but did not know how to utilize the
cultural health information they received. They inquired about health beliefs, but were
not sure how to incorporate that information into their biomedical beliefs in order to
negotiate a treatment plan. Instead, the clinicians focused on trying to educate the
patients in order to replace the patients’ cultural health beliefs with biomedical ones.
What seemed to be missing from both encounters was a true conversation and
balanced negotiation about health beliefs with a view that the patients’ views and the
clinicians’ views could both be valid. Instead of trying to educate in these situations, the
data suggests it may be more effective for clinicians and patients to discuss a common
view of the illness and a treatment plan that is possible and practical, given the specific
265
Consequently, this research also served to address the understanding of
“culture” in cultural competence. The next section will build upon previous
medical encounters (Elderkin-Thompson, et al. 2001; Flores, et al. 2003; Simon, et al.
2004; Dysart-Gale 2005). Attention to the role of language and the provision of quality,
trained medical interpreters must be upheld and maintained. This research found that
without proper training, interpreters may provide significant errors that have the
data, it was suggested that strategies that increased transparency would make the
interpretive process more visible and increase trust amongst participants. Additionally,
trust and accuracy improved when clinicians and interpreters worked as a team, both
However important the role of language, the use and role of the patient’s
needed. The notion that it is something inherent within a patient’s culture, and not the
exists even in medical encounters where the patient and clinician share the same
266
cultural and linguistic background (Korsch, et al. 1968; Shuy 1983; West and Frankel
1991; Good 1994; Hahn 1995). This is because the intensive training clinicians receive
creates a linguistic and cultural gulf between patients and clinicians (Good 1994; Sobo
beliefs or behaviors for clinicians’ review. Rather than another call for medicine to make
“culture count,” this research points to a wider set of competencies than those that
solely focus on cultural difference. The competence needed is thus one that helps
Chapter three, such as the Purnell model (2000), do not help clinicians understand how
to incorporate factors that may affect patient’s health and illness. Therefore, some
medical anthropologists argue for a model that emphasizes functionality. Elisa Sobo
possess the skills to be “at least minimally or functionally acculturated to the world of
267
their health care system in a way that allows them to function within it and achieve
This approach moves away from a focus on the shoulders of ethnically diverse
patients whose language and culture causes the barrier, to a focus on the gap between
the two cultures and in “the health care system’s own ethnocentrism” (Sobo 2009: 120).
Such a model would address the challenges that patient participants in this research
possessed, i.e., a lack of skills and knowledge necessary to apply for the county
Patient Assistance Program for free medicine. Shifting the focus away from the patient
and his or her culture also changes the implicit assumption in cultural competence that
Thus, as cultural competence focuses on the patient’s cultural health beliefs that
are different from the clinician’s beliefs, it implicitly blames barriers to treatment on
these cultural differences. A functional model identifies the barrier outside of these
stereotypical cultural differences to the health care system itself, and recommends that
patients have knowledge of how to navigate the system in order to successfully receive
treatment. Many patients in my sample had difficulties in navigating the health care
system.
This kind of model would also directly address the use of stereotypical health
beliefs by clinicians when treating immigrant patients, for example, the nursing student
at the People’s Clinic who reported that she no longer touched or complimented
268
Mexican babies for fear of giving them mal de ojo (the evil eye). Sobo’s example is also
informative: “Clinicians treating a girl from Somalia for a toe problem asked about
genital cutting, as if that had anything to do with the problem at hand; they did so
because they had been “educated” about Somali culture” (2009: 121).
This is not to say that culture does not matter. On the contrary, culture is an
intrinsic part of who we are and it cannot be separated out as a set of variables to be
however, clinicians should invite all patients, regardless of background, to discuss their
and learning. I suggest openness on the part of clinicians as well as a readiness to seek
differences in health beliefs arise, clinicians should be extra vigilant to have a true
The research reported in this dissertation provides ethnographic data about how
limitation of this study is that my observation of one medical encounter represents one
point in time amongst presumably multiple visits between patients and clinicians.
269
Therefore, a longitudinal study with the same patient and clinician will yield a more rich
findings may be unique to these groups. For example, the clinicians in my sample were
nurse practitioners, whose training is more holistic than medical doctors. Specifically,
nurse practitioners have been found to spend more time with patients, and spend more
time discussing treatment options, when compared to medical doctors (Seale, et al.
Further, the clinicians were volunteers and often stated one reason they
volunteered at the clinic was that they could treat patients how they wanted to. While
supervised, clinicians were not governed by constraints that other clinicians may
experience operating in a managed care environment. The amount of time spent with
patients was not regulated, although it was clear that patients were turned away from
the clinic every day. Thus, clinicians were aware that the more time they spent with
patients meant that other people did not receive the needed treatment.
upon this research to examine the extent to which the explanatory model concept is
treatment. As other researchers point out, explanatory models are fluid, cognitive
constructs influenced by culture, society, and other factors (Lazarus 1998; Larsen 2004).
270
Explanatory models are spoken within specific stories or discourses narrated by
individuals in one time and place. Larsen found that “the actual explanatory model used
by an individual is linked to the situatedness of the narrative event” (2004: 450). Thus,
consuming process, may become an end in itself if it is not coupled with the knowledge
of how to incorporate fully the information into a meaningful discourse with the patient.
More research is needed about how clinicians may use the explanatory model concept
process of treatment.
patterns of circular migration affect health care decisions and treatment. Two patients I
interviewed indicated they live both in Texas and in Mexico and El Salvador. Both
patients had primary clinicians in each country and both patients reported consistency
is difficult to build bridges and collaborate with medical disciplines (Kleinman and Good
1985; Hopper 1991). In the last thirty years, funding cuts and managed care restrictions
have had negative consequences on clinical training and have left health, social and
271
system (Lefley 2001). The current failure to apply anthropological knowledge is part of a
more general failure to incorporate information at the time of training from the social
about the relevance of their work to other disciplines (Rylko-Bauer 1989; Kleinman
2001). To this end, I anticipate working with the People’s Clinic to create a training
program for the promotoras and nursing students on how to work as a team to ensure
interventions for patients and clinicians alike to help them clearly articulate their goals
in order for agendas and expectations to be met. Training for clinicians on how to
For example, a second research population emerged at the People’s Clinic during the
observations indicated that these refugees had far greater difficulty than the Mexican
culture, language, etiological models, and structural systems. This was not only because
the cultural differences to American culture were greater than the Mexican immigrant
272
patients, but also because of the political, economic, and personal suffering the Karen
refugees have endured under a military dictatorship since 1984. Research into this
At a national level, the recent change in health care policy by the current federal
policy change. The Joint Commission, the agency that maintains hospital accreditation,
year. This dissertation research speaks directly to such proposed requirements, making
individual plans. Anthropologists, whose focus is holistic, can also incorporate political
and economic determinants of society into studies of health and medicine (Lazarus
1988; Santiago-Irizzary 1996;Hirsch 2003; Hunt 2005; Shaw 2005). Perhaps the most
important and compelling reason to continue this field of study is the potential it brings
for designing interventions that would reduce health inequality and improve health care
services, making services more accessible to a diverse range of people while providing
care for all people, regardless of status. Research remains crucial to achieve these
changes.
273
Appendix I: Patient and Clinician Interviews and Patient Survey
Clinician Interview
Volunteering
Patient Population
9. Tell me about a time when you were treating a patient at the clinic that was
really rewarding.
Communication
11. I’m interested in the interpreting process. What do you think of the
promotoras?
16. I’d like to talk now about culture. Does understanding the patient’s culture help
you communicate or understand better?
18. My final question is whether you have additional overall comments. I would like
my study to help other clinicians learn how to communicate better with patients
from different cultures or language backgrounds.
275
Patient Interview
Explanatory Model
1. Can you tell me why you came to the clinic today? (Also probe for the name of
the illness)
9. What did you want the doctor or nurse to do for this illness (today)?
10. (Before you came in) Did you want specific medicine or treatments for this
illness?
Current Treatments
14. Did the nurse/doctor tell you what is wrong with you? What did they say?
276
15. What do you think about the explanation of the illness?
16. Did the nurse/doctor prescribe any treatment for your illness?
Communication
19. Are there ever times at this clinic or other places that you don’t understand what
was said? What happened during those times?
20. Did you have any questions or things you wanted to discuss today with the
nurse or doctor but didn’t?
21. What can doctors and nurses do to communicate better with their patients?
Especially patients from different countries?
277
Patient Survey
This survey is to help me understand how patients and doctors from different cultures
communicate, especially when they do not speak the same language. Please answer all
questions. Your answers are confidential and will not be directly shared with the
People’s Clinic. Thank you for participating!
4. Before you came in to the clinic today, what other treatments have you used for this
illness?
*Please answer the following questions by checking the right box or boxes.
5. Often people come to the doctor with expectations. What were you wanting or
expecting from the doctor today? Check all that apply.
278
6. Did the doctor or nurse do what you hoped?
Yes
No
Medicine Rest
Yes
No
I don’t know
If yes, what is the name of the medicine? How long have you been taking the
medicine?
279
9. Please think about your visit to the doctor today.
Did your doctor or nurse fully explain:
Yes No
10. Did you have any questions or things you wanted to discuss today with the nurse or
doctor but didn’t?
Yes
No
11. What could doctors or nurses do to improve their communication with patients?
280
13. How long have you been a patient at the People’s clinic?
1-6 months
6-12 months
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 or more years
Female
Male
281
Appendix II: Transcription Notations
Overlapping Utterances
When utterances do not start simultaneously, the point at which a new utterance
overlaps or interrupts an ongoing utterance is marked by a single left bracket.
Contiguous Utterances
When there is no silence between two speaker’s utterances and the second one is
immediately latched onto the first without overlapping, the utterances are marked with
equal signs:
Equal signs are also used to link different parts of a single speaker’s utterance when that
utterance has been interrupted by another speaker, to accommodate the transcript
design:
Intervals
When there are intervals between speech either between or within utterances, they are
timed by 1 second and marked (.) within parentheses; pauses more than 5 seconds are
marked by the number of second (6) within parentheses.
Sue: I just can’t imagine (..) I’ve never seen anything like it before.
282
Intonation
Punctuation is used to capture characteristics of speech delivery. A colon indicates an
extension of the sound or syllable it follows:
283
Bibliography
Abbe, Marisa, Christian Simon, Anne Angiolillo, Kathy Ruccione and Eric Kodish
2006 A Survey of Language Barriers From the Perspective of Pediatric Oncologists,
Interpreters, and Parents, Pediatric Blood and Cancer, 47: 819-824
Ainsworth-Vaughn, Nancy
1992 Topic Transitions in Physician-Patient Interviews: Power, Gender and Discourse
Change, Language in Society, 21: 409-426.
1994a Is that a Rhetorical Question? Ambiguity and Power in Medical Discourse,
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 4: 194-214.
1994b Negotiating Genre and Power: Questions in medical discourse. In Text and Talk in
Professional Contexts. B.L.Gunnarsson, P.Linell, and B.Nordstrom, eds. Uppsala,
Sweden: Association Suedoise de Linguistique Appliquee.
1998 Claiming Power in Doctor-Patient Talk. New York: Oxford University Press.
Arellano, Diana
2004 Cultural Competence: The Voice of the Practitioner. Unpublished Dissertation,
Department of Public Administration, Arizona State University.
Asad, T.
1973 Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca.
Avery, M.
2001 The Role of the Health Care Interpreter: An Evolving Dialogue. The National
Council on Interpreting in Health Care Working Papers Series, 1-15.
Baker, David, Ruth Parker, Mark Williams, Wendy Coates, and Kathryn Pitkin
1996 Use and Effectiveness of Interpreters in an Emergency Room Department,
Journal of the American Medical Association, 275: 783-8.
284
Baker, David, Risa Hayes, and Julia Puebla Fortier
1998 Interpreter Use and Satisfaction with Interpersonal Aspects of Care for Spanish-
speaking Patients, Medical Care, 36: 1461-70.
Barrett, Robert
2004 Kurt Schneider in Borneo: Do First Rank Symptoms Apply to the Iban? In
Schizophrenia, Culture and Subjectivity. J. Jenkins and R. Barrett, eds. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Barry, Christine A.
2002 The Role of Evidence in Alternative Medicine: Contrasting Biomedical and
Anthropological Approaches, Social Science and Medicine, 62(11): 2646-2657.
Barry, Christine A., Colin P. Bradley, Nicky Britten, Fiona A. Stevenson, and Nick Barber
2000 Patients' Unvoiced Agendas in General Practice Consultations: A Qualitative
Study, British Medical Journal, 320: 1246-1250.
Barry, Christine A., Fiona A. Stevenson, Nicky Britten, Nick Barber and Colin P. Bradley
2001 Giving Voice to the Lifeworld. More Humane, More Effective Medical Care? A
Qualitative Study of Doctor–Patient Communication in General Practice, Social
Science and Medicine,53 (4): 487-50.
Beach, Mary Catherine, Eboni Price, Tiffany Gary, Karen Robinson, Ana Palacio, and Lisa
Cooper
2005 Cultural Competence: A Systematic Review of Health Care Provider Educational
Interventions, Medical Care, 43(4): 356-373.
Betancourt, Joseph
2004 Cultural Competence – Marginal or Mainstream Movement?, New England
Journal of Medicine, 351(10): 953-955.
285
Betancourt, Joseph, Alexander Green, Emillo Carrillo, and Elyse Park
2005 Cultural Competence and Health Care Disparities: Key Perspectives and Trends,
Health Affairs, 24(2): 499-505.
Bernard, H. Russell
2002 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
3rd ed. Walnut Creek, CM: Alta Mira Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges, Social Science and Information, 16: 645-
68.
Briggs, Charles L.
1986 Learning How To Ask. A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in
Social Science Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Britten, Nicky, Fiona A. Stevenson, Christine A. Barry, Nick Barber, and Colin P. Bradley
2000 Misunderstandings in Prescribing Decisions in General Practice: A Qualitative
Study, British Medical Journal, 320: 484-488.
Brody, Howard
1987 Stories of Sickness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
286
Browner, C.H.
1994 Margaret Clark's Enduring Contribution to Latino Studies in Medical
Anthropology, Medical Anthropology Quarterly,8(4):468-475.
Browner, C.H., H. Mabel Preloran, Maria Casado, Harold Bass and Ann Walker
2003 Genetic Counseling Gone Awry: Miscommunication between Prenatal Genetic
Service Providers and Mexican-origin Clients, Social Science and Medicine, 56:
1933-1946.
Charon, Rita
2001 Narrative Medicine: A Model for Empathy, Reflection, Profession, and Trust,
Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(15): 1897-1902.
Chavez, Leo R.
2003 Immigration and Medical Anthropology. In American Arrivals: Anthropology
Engages the New Immigration. Nancy Foner, ed. Santa Fe: School of American
Research, Advanced Seminar Series.
287
Chavez, Leo R., F. Allan Hubbell, Juliet McMullin, Rebecca Martinez, and Shiraz Mishra
1995 Structure and Meaning in Models of Breast and Cervical Cancer Risk Factors: A
Comparison of Perceptions among Latinas, Anglo women, and Physicians,
Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 9(1): 40-74.
Chomsky, Noam
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chrisman, Noel
2007 Extending Cultural Competence Through Systems Change: Academic, Hospital,
and Community Partnerships, Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 18: 68S.
Cicourel, Aaron
1983 Hearing is Not Believing: Language and the Structure of Belief in Medical
Communication. In The Social Organization of Doctor-Patient Communication. S.
Fisher and A. Todd, eds. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
1987 The Interpenetration of Communicative Contexts: Examples from Medical
Encounters, Social Psychology Quarterly, 50: 217-26.
Clark, Margaret
1970 Health in the Mexican-American Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clifford, James
1997 Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
288
Washington, DC: CASSP Technical Assistance Center, Georgetown University
Child Development Center.
Davidson, Brad
2000 The Interpreter as Institutional Gatekeeper: The Social-linguistic Role of
Interpreters in Spanish-English Medical Discourse, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4:
379-405.
2001 Questions in Cross-linguistic Medical Encounters: the Role of the Hospital
Interpreter. Situations and Interpretations: Explorations in Interpretive Practice
[Special Issue], Anthropological Quarterly, 74: 170-8.
2002 A Model for the Construction of Conversational Common Ground in Interpreted
Discourse, Journal of Pragmatics, 341: 273-300.
Davis, Fred
1963 Passage Through Crisis: Polio Victims and Their Families. Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merrill.
Devereux, George
1961 Mohave Ethnopsychiatry: the Psychic Disturbances of an Indian Tribe.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press.
Diaz-Duque, Ozzie
1989 Communication Barriers in Medical Settings: Hispanics in the United States,
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 79: 93-102.
289
Duranti, Alessandro
1997 Linguistic Anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2001 Linguistic anthropology: History, ideas and issues. In Linguistic Anthropology: A
Reader. A. Duranti, ed. Malden: Blackwell.
Dysart-Gale, D.
2005 Communication Models, Professionalization, and the Work of Medical
Interpreters, Health Communication, 17(1): 91-103.
Engel, George L.
1984 The Need for a New Medical Model: a Challenge for Biomedicine. In Culture and
Psychopathology. J. Mezzich and C. Berganza, eds. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Erzinger, Sharry
1991 Communication between Spanish-speaking Patients and their Doctors in Medical
Encounters, Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 15: 91-110.
Eunice, Eunyoung
2004 The Model of Cultural Competence through an Evolutionary Concept Analysis,
Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 15(2):93-102.
Fadiman, Anne
1997 The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down: A Hmong Child, Her American
Doctors, and the Collision of Two Cultures. New York: The Noonday Press.
Farmer, Paul
2003 Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
2004 An Anthropology of Structural Violence, Current Anthropology, 45(3): 305-324.
290
Finkelstein, Stan and Peter Temin
2008 Reasonable Rx: Solving the Drug Price Crisis. New Jersey: FT Press.
Finkler, Kaja
2004 Biomedicine Globalized and Localized: Western Medical Practices in an
Outpatient Clinic of a Mexican Hospital, Social Science and Medicine, 59:2037-
2051.
Fisher, Sue
1986 In the Patient's Best Interest: Women and the Politics of Medical Decisions. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
1998 Doctor Talk/Patient Talk: How Treatment Decisions are Negotiated in Doctor-
Patient Communication. In Linguistics at Work: A Reader of Application. D.D.
Oaks, ed. New York: Hartcourt Brace College Publishers.
Flores, Glenn, Barton Laws, Sandra Mayo, Barry Zuckerman, Milagros Abreu, Leonardo
Medina and Eric Hardt
2003 Errors in Medical Interpretation and their Potential Clinical Consequences in
Pediatric Encounters, Pediatrics, 111(1): 6-14.
Fortin, Sulvie
2008 The Paediatric Clinic as Negotiated Social Space, Anthropology & Medicine, 15(3):
175-187.
Foster, George
1953 What is Folk Culture, American Anthropologist, 55(2):159-173.
1976 Disease Etiologies in Non-Western Medical Systems, American Anthropologist,
78(4): 773-782.
1994 Hippocrates’ Latin American Legacy: Humoral Medicine in the New World.
Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
291
Foucault, Michel
1972 The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York:
Pantheon Books.
1973 The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. New York: Vintage
Books.
1975 Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House.
Frank, Arthur
1995 The Wounded Storyteller: Body, Illness, and Ethics. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Frankel, Richard
1983 The Laying on of Hands: Aspects of the Organization of Gaze, Touch, and Talk in a
Medical Encounter. In The Social Organization of Doctor-patient
Communication. S. Fisher and A. Todd, eds. Washington DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
1984 From Sentence to Sequence: Understanding the Medical Encounter through
Micro-interactional Analysis, Discourse Processes,7: 135-170.
Freeman, Sarah
1987a Health Promotion Talk in Family Practice Encounters, Social Science and
Medicine, Special issue.
1987b Introduction. Verbal Communication in Medical Encounters: An Overview of
Recent Work, Text, 7: 3-17.
Gaines, Atwood
1979 Definitions and Diagnoses: Cultural Implications of Psychiatric Help-Seeking and
Psychiatrists’ Definitions of the Situation in Psychiatric Emergencies, Culture,
Medicine and Psychiatry, 3(4): 381-418.
1982a Cultural Definitions, Behavior and the Person in American Psychiatry. In Cultural
Conceptions of Mental Health and Therapy. J. Marsella and G. White, eds.
Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.
1982b Knowledge and Practice: Anthropological Ideas and Psychiatric Practice. In
Clinically Applied Anthropology. N. Chrisman and T.W. Maretzki, eds. Dordrecht:
D Reidel Publishing Co.
1988 Delusions: Culture, Psychosis and the Problem of Meaning. In Delusional Beliefs.
T.Oltmanns and B. Maher, eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
1992a Ethnopsychiatry: the Cultural Construction of Psychiatries. In Ethnopsychiatry:
the Cultural Construction of Professional and Folk Psychiatries. A. Gaines, ed.
New York: State University of New York Press.
292
1992b From DSM-I to III-R; Voices of Self, Mastery and the Other: a Cultural
Constructivist Reading of U.S. Psychiatric Classification, Social Science and
Medicine, 35 (1): 3-24.
N.d. Psychiatry in Anthropology: From Anthropological Subject to Ethnomedical
Object.
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Garro, Linda
1986 Intracultural Variation in Folk Medical Knowledge: A Comparison between Curers
and Noncurers, American Anthropologist, 88:351-370.
Geertz, Clifford
1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
1984 Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
1986 Anti-anti-relativism, American Anthropologist, 86: 263-278.
Goffman, Erving
1959 Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
1961 Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates.
New York: Doubleday.
1981 Forms of Talk. PhiladelphiM: University of Pennsylvania Press.
293
Good, Byron
1977 The Heart of What's the Matter: Semantics and Illness in Iran, Culture, Medicine
and Psychiatry, 1: 25-58.
1994 Medicine, Rationality and Experience: an Anthropological Perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, Paul
1989 Studies in the Ways of Words. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, J. J.
1972 Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
2001 [1968 orig] The Speech Community. In Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader.
Alessandro Duranti, ed. Malden: Blackwell.
Habermas, Jürgen
1984 The Theory of Communicative Action, Reason and the Rationalization of Society,
vol. 1. London: Heinemann.
Haffner, Linda
1992 Translation is Not Enough: Interpreting in a Medical Setting. In Cross Cultural
Medicine - A Decade Later [Special Issue], The Western Journal of Medicine, 157:
255-9.
Hahn, Robert
1985 Culture-Bound Syndromes Unbound, Social Science and Medicine, 21 (2): 165-
171.
1995 Sickness and Healing: An Anthropological Perspective. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
294
Hahn, Robert and Atwood Gaines, Eds.
1985 Physicians of Western Medicine: Anthropological Approaches to Theory and
Practice. Dordrecht: D Reidel Publishing Co.
Haidet, Paul, Kimberly O’Malley, Barbara Sharf, Alicia Gladney, Anthony Greisinger, and
Richard Street
2008 Characterizing Explanatory Models of Illness in Healthcare: Development and
Validation of the CONNECT Instrument, Patient Education and Counseling, 73:
232-239.
Harwood, A, Ed.
1981 Guidelines for Culturally Appropriate Health Care. In Ethnicity and Medical Care.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hasnain-Wynia, Romana
2006 Is Evidence-Based Medicine Patient-Centered and is Patient-Centered Care
Evidence-Based?,Health Services Research, 41(1): 1-8.
Hayes-Bautista, David
2002 The Latino health research agenda for the twenty-first century. In Latinos:
Remaking America. M. Suárez-Orozco and M. Páez, eds. Pp. 215-235. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
295
Hirsch, Jennifer
2003 Anthropologists, Migrants, and Health Research: Confronting Cultural
Appropriateness. In American Arrivals: Anthropology Engages the New
Immigration. N. Foner, ed. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Hsieh, Elaine
2010 Provider-Interpreter Collaboration in Bilingual Health Care: Competitions of
Control of Interpreter-Mediated Interactions, Patient Education and Counseling,
78: 154-159.
Hunt, Linda
2005 Health Research: What's culture got to do with it?, The Lancet, 366(9486):617-
618.
Hyden, Lars-Christer
1997 Illness and Narrative, Sociology of Health and Illness, 19(1): 48-69.
Hymes, Dell
1964 Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication, American
Anthropologist, Special Issue, 1-34.
2001 [1972 orig] On Communicative Competence. In Linguistic Anthropology: A
Reader. A. Duranti, ed. Malden: Blackwell.
Ingham, John
1970 On Mexican Folk Medicine, American Anthropologist, 72:76-87.
296
Jacobs, E., & Goldin, G.
2002 A Volunteers in Healthcare Guide to Overcoming Language Barriers. Pawtucket,
RI: Volunteers in Healthcare.
Jenkins, Christopher, Thao Le, Stephen McPhee, Susan Stewart, and Ngoc the Ha
1996 Health Care Access and Preventive Care Among Vietnamese Immigrants: Do
Traditional Beliefs and Practices Pose Barriers?, Social Science and Medicine,
43(7):1049-1056.
Johnson, Rachel, Somnath Saha, Jose Arbelaez, Mary Catherine Beach, and Lisa Cooper
2004 Racial and Ethnic Differences in Patient Perceptions of Bias and Cultural
Competence in Health Care, Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19:101-110.
Jordan, Brigitte
1978 Birth in Four Cultures. 4th edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
1997 Authoritative Knowledge and Its Construction. In Childbirth and Authoritative
Knowledge: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Robbie E. Davis-Floyd and Carolyn F.
Sargent, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
297
Kaufert, J.M., & Putsch, R.W.
1997 Communication through Interpreters in Health Care: Ethical Dilemmas Arising
from Differences in Class, Culture, and Power, The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 8(1):
71-87.
Kiev, Ari
1964 Magic, Faith and Healing. New York: The Free Press.
1968 Curanderismo: Mexican-American Folk Psychiatry. New York: Free Press.
1972 Transcultural Psychiatry. New York: Free Press.
Kleinman, Arthur
1978 Culture, Illness and Care: Clinical Lessons from Anthropological and Cross-
Cultural Research, Ann Intern Med, 89: 251-258.
1980 Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture. A. Kleinman, L. Eisenberg, B.
Good, ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1988 The Illness Narratives. New York: Basic Books.
1995 Writing at the Margin. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Koehn, Peter
2004 Global Politics and Multinational Health-care Encounters: Assessing the Role of
Transnational Competence, EcoHealth, 1: 69-85.
298
Landers, Susan
2009 Mandating Cultural Competency: Should Physicians be Required to Take
Courses? American Medical News, accessed online 3/2010:
http://www.amaassn.org/amednews/2009/10/19/prsa1019.htm
Lazarus, Ellen
1988 Theoretical Considerations for the Study of the doctor-Patient Relationship:
Implications of a Perinatal Study, Medical Anthropology Quarterly,2(1):34-58.
Lefley, Harriet
2001 Mental Health Treatment and Service Delivery in a Cross-Cultural Perspective. In
Cross-Cultural Topics in Psychology. L. Adler and U. Gielen, eds. Westport:
Praeger.
Leslie, Charles
1980 Medical Pluralism in World Perspective, Social Science and Medicine, 14(4): 191-
195.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude
1961 La crise modeme de l'anthropologie, Le Courr, (UNESCO), 14(11):12-17.
Littlewood, Roland
1990 From Categories to Contexts: A Decade of the ‘New Cross Cultural Psychiatry,’
British Journal of Psychiatry, 156: 308-327.
299
Marcos, Luis and Manuel Trujillo
1981 Culture, Language, and Communicative Behavior: The Psychiatric Examination of
Spanish-Americans. In Latino Language and Communicative Behavior. R. Duran,
ed. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Co.
Mattingly, Cheryl
1998 Healing Dramas and Clinical Plots: The Narrative Structure of Experience.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2000 Emergent Narratives. In Narrative and the Cultural Construction of Illness and
Healing. Garro and Mattingly, eds. Berkeley, University of California Press.
2008 Reading Minds and Telling Tales in a Cultural Borderland, Ethos, 36(1) 136-154.
Mauss, Marcel
1996 A Category of the Human Mind: the Notion of the Person; the Notion of Self. In
The Category of the Person. Carrithers, Collins, and Lukes, eds. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
McNees, Molly
2001 Culture, Communication and Health Care: The Development of Cultural
Competence in Primary Health Care. Unpublished Dissertation. Department of
Social Sciences, New School University.
Mishler, Eliot
1981 Viewpoint: Critical Perspectives on the Biomedical Model. In Social Contexts of
Health, Illness, and Patient Care. E. Mishler, ed. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
1984 The Discourse of Medicine: Dialectics of Medical Interviews. Norwood: Ablex
Publishing Co.
1995 Models of Narrative Analysis, Journal of Narrative and Life History, 5: 87-123.
1997 Interactional Construction of Narratives in Medical and Life-history Interviews. In
The Construction of Professional Discourse. B.L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, and B.
Nordberg, ed. New York: Longman.
300
Murphy, H.B.M.
2000 [1971 orig] History and the Evolution of Syndromes: the Striking Case of Latah
and Amok. In Cultural Psychiatry and Medical Anthropology. R. Littlewood
and S. Dein, eds. New Jersey: The Athlone Press.
Park, Elyse, Joseph Betancourt, Minah Kim, Angela Maina, David Blumenthal, and Joel
Weissman
2005 Mixed Messages: Resident’s Experiences Learning Cross-Cultural Care, Academic
Medicine, 80(9): 874-880.
Parsons, Talcott
1951 The Social System. New York: The Free Press.
Paul, Benjamin
1955 Health, Culture, and Community: Case Studies of Public Reactions to Programs.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
1963 Anthropological Perspectives on Medicine and Public Health, Medicine and
Society, 346: 34-43.
Peirano, Mariza
1998 When Anthropology is at Home: The Different Contexts of a Single Discipline,
Annual Review of Anthropology, 27: 105-128.
301
Perkins, J.
2003 Ensuring Linguistic Access in Health Care Settings: An Overview of Current Legal
Rights and Responsibilities. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1-31.
Platt, Fredrick, David Gaspar, John Coulehan, Lucy Fox, Andrew Adler, W. Wayne
Weston, Robert Smith, and Moira Stewart
2001 The Patient Centered Interview, Annals of Internal Medicine, 134(11): 1079-
1085.
Price, Eboni, Mary Catherine Beach, Tiffany Gary, Karen Robinson, Aysegul Gozy, Ana
Palacio, Carole Smarth, and Lisa Cooper
2005 A Systematic Review of the Methodological Rigor of Studies Evaluating Cultural
Competence Training of Health Professionals, Academic Medicine, 80(6): 578-
586.
Purnell, Larry
2000 A Description of the Purnell Model for Cultural Competence, Journal of
Transcultural Nursing, 11(1): 40-46.
Reimann, Joachim, Gregory Talavera, Michelle Salmon, Joseph Nuñez, and Roberto
Velasquez
2004 Cultural Competence among Physicians Treating Mexican Americans who have
Diabetes: A Structural Model, Social Science and Medicine, 59: 2195-2205.
302
Reimers, David M
2005 Other Immigrants: The Global Origins of the American People. New York: New
York University Press.
Richards, Lyn
2005 Handling Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Roth, J.A.
1963 Information and the Control of Treatment in Tuberculosis Hospitals. In The
Hospital in Modern Society. E. Friedson, ed. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Rubel, Arthur
1960 Concepts of Disease in Mexican-American Culture, American Anthropologist,
62:795-814.
303
Rylko-Bauer, Barbara
1989 Strategies for Increasing the Use of Anthropological Research in the Policy
Process: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis. In Making Our Research Useful: Case
Studies in the Utilization of Anthropological Knowledge.van Willigen, Rylko-
Bauer, McElroy, eds. Boulder: Westview Press.
Sacks, Harvey
1984 Notes on Methodology. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational
Analysis. J.M.Atkinson and J.Heritage, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Said, Edward
1978 Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.
Santiago-Irizarry, Vilma
1996 Culture as Cure, Cultural Anthropology, 11(1):3-24.
2001 Medicalizing Ethnicity: The Construction of Latino Identity in a Psychiatric
Setting. IthacM: Cornell University Press.
2003 Binary Oppositions: Reinscribing Ethnoracial Hierarchies in Institutional Settings,
Journal of Latin American Anthropology, 8(2):174-195.
Sarangi, Srikant
2004 Towards a Communicative Mentality in Medical and Healthcare Practice,
Communication and Medicine, 1(1): 1-11.
Schegloff, Emanuel
1991 Reflections on Talk and Social Structure. In Talk and Social Structure. D.Boden
and D.Zimmerman, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schutz, Alfred
1962 Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
304
Shaw, Susan
2005 The Politics of Recognition in Culturally Appropriate Care, Medical Anthropology
Quarterly, 19(3):290-309.
Shen, Zuwang
2004 Cultural Competence Models in Nursing: A Selected Annotated Bibliography,
Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 15: 317-322.
Shuy, Roger
1974 Problems of Communication in the Cross-Cultural Medical Interview, Working
Papers in Sociolinguistics, 19:1-36.
1983 Three Types of Interference to an Effective Exchange of Information in the
Medical Interview. In The Social Organization of Doctor-Patient Communication.
S. Fisher and A. Dundas Todd, eds. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Simon, Chris, Zyzanski, S., Eder, M., Raiz, P., Kodish, Eric, and Siminoff, L.
2003 Groups Potentially at Risk for Making Poorly Informed Decisions about Entry into
Clinical Trials for Childhood Cancer, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(June 1):
2173-2178.
Singer, Merrill
1995 Beyond the Ivory Tower: Critical Praxis in Medical Anthropology, Medical
Anthropology Quarterly, 9(1): 80-106.
305
Simons, Ronald and Charles Hughes
1985 The Culture Bound Syndromes. Boston: D Reidel.
Sobo, Elisa
2009 Culture and Meaning in Health Services Research. Walnut Creek: Left Coast
Press.
Stewart, Moira, Judith Belle Brown, Allan Donner, Ian R. McWhinney, Julian Oates, W.
Wayne Weston, and John Jordan
2000 The Impact of Patient-Centered Care on Outcomes, The Journal of Family
Practice, 49(9): 796-804.
Stewart, Richard
2004 Twelve Practical Suggestions for Achieving Multicultural Competence,
Professional Psychology, Research, and Practice, 35(1): 3-9.
Suárez-Orozco, Carola
2001 Identities Under Siege: Immigration Stress and Social Mirroring among the
Children of Immigrants. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the New
Immigration: The new immigrant and the American Family. M. Suárez-Orozco, C.
Suárez-Orozco, and D. Qin-Hilliard, eds. New York: Routledge
Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo
2003 Right moves? Immigration, Globalization, Utopia, and Dystopia. In American
Arrivals: Anthropology engages the new immigration. N. Foner, ed. Pp. 45-74.
Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
306
Sue, Stanley
2003 In Defense of Cultural Competency in Psychotherapy and Treatment, American
Psychologist, November: 964-970.
Suro, Roberto
1998 Strangers Among Us: How Latino Immigration is Transforming America. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Taussig, Michael
1980 Reification and the Consciousness of the Patient, Social Science and Medicine,
14, 3-13.
Taylor, Janelle
2003 The Story Catches You and You Fall Down: Tragedy, Ethnography, and "Cultural
Competence," Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 17(2): 159-181.
Turner, Victor
1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. New York: Cornell University
Press.
1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
307
Vega, William, and Margarita Alegría
2001 Latino Mental Health and Treatment in the United States. In Health Issues in the
Latino Community. M. Aguirre-Molina, C. Molina, and R. Zambrana, eds. Pp.
179-208. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wadensjo, Cecilia
2001 Interpreting in Crisis: The Interpreter’s Position in Therapeutic Encounters. In
Triadic Exchanges. Ian Mason, ed. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Longman.
Waitzkin, Howard
1985 Information Giving in Medical Care, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26:81-
101.
1991 The Politics of Medical Encounters: How Patients and Doctors Deal with Social
Problems. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Wells, Marcia
2000 Beyond Cultural Competence: A Model for Individual and Institutional Cultural
Development, Journal of Community Health Nursing, 17(4): 189-199.
West, Candace
1984 Routine Complications: Troubles with Talk Between Doctors and Patients.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
White, Geoffrey
1982 The Ethnographic Study of Cultural Knowledge of “Mental Disorder.” In Cultural
Conceptions of Mental Health and Therapy. A. Marsella and G. White, eds.
Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.
Wodak, Ruth
1996 Disorders of Discourse. London and New York: Longman.
1997 Critical Discourse Analysis and the Study of Doctor-Patient Interaction. In The
Construction of Professional Discourse. B.L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, and B.
Nordberg, eds. New York: Longman.
308
Yap, P.M.
2000 [1951 orig] Mental Diseases Peculiar to Certain Cultures: A Survey of
Comparative Psychiatry. In Cultural Psychiatry and Medical Anthropology.
R. Littlewood and S. Dein, eds. New Jersey: The Athlone Press.
Young, Allan
1986 Internalising and Externalising Medical Belief Systems: An Ethiopian Example, In
Concepts of Health, Illness, and Disease: A Comparative Perspective. Currer and
Stacy, eds. Oxford: Berg: 137-160.
Zabar, Sondra, Kathleen Hanley, Elizabeth Kachur, David Stevens, Mark Schwartz, Ellen
Pearlman, Jennifer Adams, Karla Felix, Mack Lipkin, Adina Kalet
2006 “Oh! She doesn’t speak English!” Assessing Resident Competence in Managing
Cultural and Linguistic Barriers, Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21:510-
513.
309