Cultural considerations at end-of-life for people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: A critical interpretative synthesis.
Elizabeth Lambert, Karen Strickland, Jo Gibson
PMID 37024426WHAT IT FOUND
Australian end-of-life care for culturally and linguistically diverse people faced barriers: poor interpreter access, jargon, English-only services, and staff cultural competence gaps.
Ask each person and family about language, beliefs, rituals, and decision-making preferences.
Key findings
01The synthesis grouped the evidence into four themes: communication and health literacy, access to end-of-life services, cultural norms, traditions and rituals, and cultural competence of healthcare workers.
02In an included study, 55% of patients on admission identified that they would need an interpreter, but only 9% received professional interpreters; family and bilingual staff handled the rest.
03Included studies reported that many nurses did not feel competent in providing culturally appropriate end-of-life care and lacked formal cultural education.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review included 19 Australian publications, and 14 were qualitative, so it describes barriers and themes rather than testing whether any practice change improves outcomes. The first author selected the studies alone, which may have introduced selection bias. It excluded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, paediatric and adolescent populations, and studies published before 2011 or not in English. Most studies were in metropolitan areas; only one addressed rural Australia, so it says little about remote or regional care. Some specific cultural findings came from very small samples, such as 15 participants, so they should not be read as true for all culturally and linguistically diverse groups.
Declared interests
No funding was provided, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this synthesis as proof that professional interpreters, multilingual materials, or cultural training improve end-of-life outcomes. It reports barriers and themes from existing Australian studies, not tested interventions.