
AbstractAimThis paper seeks to describe best practices for conducting cross‐language research with individuals who have a language barrier.DesignDiscussion paper.Data SourcesResearch methods papers addressing cross‐language research issues published between 2000–2017.Implications for NursingRigorous cross‐language research involves the appropriate use of interpreters during the research process, systematic planning for how to address the language barrier between participant and researcher and the use of reliably and validly translated survey instruments (when applicable). Biases rooted in those who enter data into “big data” systems may influence data quality and analytic approaches in large observational studies focused on linking patient language preference to health outcomes.ConclusionCross‐language research methods can help ensure that those individuals with language barriers have their voices contributing to the evidence informing healthcare practice and policies that shape health services implementation and financing. Understanding the inherent conscious and unconscious biases of those conducting research with this population and how this may emerge in research studies is also an important part of producing rigorous, reliable, and valid cross‐language research.Impact This study synthesized methodological recommendations for cross‐language research studies with the goal to improve the quality of future research and expand the evidence‐base for clinical practice. Clear methodological recommendations were generated that can improve research rigor and quality of cross‐language qualitative and quantitative studies. The recommendations generated here have the potential to have an impact on the health and well‐being of migrants around the world.
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Male, Biomedical Research, Patient Selection, Communication Barriers, Middle Aged, Humans, Female, Qualitative Research, Aged
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Male, Biomedical Research, Patient Selection, Communication Barriers, Middle Aged, Humans, Female, Qualitative Research, Aged
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 68 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
