Search

Background: Increasing immigration in the world today leads to more intercultural interactions. This is a particularly crucial fact in doctor-patient relationships, which often become more complex and suboptimal within an intercultural context. Since acculturation is a particularly important factor in this process, and the doctor-patient relationship is a key component in patient health outcomes, this study investigates the interrelation of individual immigrant acculturation orientations with the quality of the doctor-immigrant patient relationship, the patients' perceived quality of care, and how this relates to immigrant health behaviours and quality of life of the patients.Methods: 171 immigrant patients of various backgrounds participated in a paper and pencil questionnaire to assess the role of acculturation orientations (AO) on patients' perceived expectations of their doctor, perceived quality of care (PQOC), health behaviours and quality of life. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, regression and correlation procedures with SPSS statistical software.Results: Significant correlations were found between all AOs and measures of the participant feeling connected to the host or home culture, thereby verifying the measure of AO. All four AOs were significantly interrelated directly with the patient's perception of what the doctor expects of him/her, and the patients' quality of life. Patients' perceived expectations of their doctors were significantly related to the patients' PQOC, and PQOC was associated with improved health behaviours (adherence to doctor recommendations, physical activity maintenance self-efficacy).Conclusions: AO may be an important factor in the doctor-immigrant patient relationship, via a complex process involving the patients' perceptions of doctors' expectations and perceived quality of care. This has important implications, since such an understanding can be used to create interventions for both doctors and immigrant patients to learn about their own AO, how it can relate to the quality of their relationship, and ultimately, the quality of care, health and quality of life of the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public health researchers are increasingly encouraged to establish international collaborations and to undertake cross-national comparative studies. To-date relatively few such studies have addressed migration, ethnicity and health, but their number is growing. While it is clear that divergent approaches to such comparative research are emerging, public health researchers have not so far given considered attention to the opportunities and challenges presented by such work. This paper contributes to this debate by drawing on the experience of a recent study focused on maternal health in Canada, Germany and the UK.Discussion: The paper highlights various ways in which cross-national comparative research can potentially enhance the rigour and utility of research into migration, ethnicity and health, including by: forcing researchers to engage in both ideological and methodological critical reflexivity; raising awareness of the socially and historically embedded nature of concepts, methods and generated 'knowledge'; increasing appreciation of the need to situate analyses of health within the wider socio-political setting; helping researchers (and research users) to see familiar issues from new perspectives and find innovative solutions; encouraging researchers to move beyond fixed 'groups' and 'categories' to look at processes of identification, inclusion and exclusion; promoting a multi-level analysis of local, national and global influences on migrant/minority health; and enabling conceptual and methodological development through the exchange of ideas and experience between diverse research teams. At the same time, the paper alerts researchers to potential downsides, including: significant challenges to developing conceptual frameworks that are meaningful across contexts; a tendency to reify concepts and essentialise migrant/minority 'groups' in an effort to harmonize across countries; a danger that analyses are superficial, being restricted to independent country descriptions rather than generating integrated insights; difficulties of balancing the need for meaningful findings at country level and more holistic products; and increased logistical complexity and costs.Summary: In view of these pros and cons, the paper encourages researchers to reflect more on the rationale for, feasibility and likely contribution of proposed cross-national comparative research that engages with migration, ethnicity and health and suggests some principles that could support such reflection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]