HD: Cross-Cultural Communication (2010)
Effective cross cultural communication involves an understanding and respect for the overall cultural characteristics of an individual’s language, literacy, disabilities, and the communication process which includes the rules and modes of communication of the opposite culture. It takes into account elements of both verbal and nonverbal interactions as well as the cultural context of the individual. Context refers to the conditions that surround the communication process that gives it fuller meaning.
1. Goode, T. D., Jones, W., Dunne, C. & Bronheim, S. (2007). And the journey continues...Achieving cultural and linguistic competence in systems serving children and youth with special health care needs and their families. Washington, DC: National Center for Cultural Competence, Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development.
2. Cultural Food Practices. Diabetes Care and Education Dietetic Practice Group. Goody, C. and Drago, L, Ed. American Dietetic Association, 2010.
3. Campinha-Bacote, J. The Process of Cultural Competence in Health Care: A Culturally Competent Model of Care (2nd Edition). Wyoming, Ohio: Transcultural C.A.R.E. Associates, Perfect Printing Press, 1994.
4. Benavides, G. Cross-Cultural Communications Program. Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, 1998.
What elements of cross-cultural communication enhance the effectiveness of nutrition assessment or intervention?
Four studies found that the following elements of cross-cultural communication enhanced nutrition assessment and intervention by the use of:
- Bilingual nurses and dietitians
- Persons from the community as community health workers
- Focus groups for the development of programs and materials
- Telephonic technology
- Culturally appropriate language of instruction.
More research would be beneficial to isolate the impact of cross-cultural communication specific to the assessment process.
- Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
- Grade II is Fair;
- Grade III is Limited/Weak;
- Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
- Grade V is Not Assignable.
- High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
- Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
- Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
- Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
- Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
Evidence Summary: Cross-cultural Communication and Effectivess of Nutrition Assessment or Intervention
- Quality Rating Summary
For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
- Brown SA, Garcia AA, Kouzekanani K, Hanis CL. Culturally competent diabetes self-management education for Mexican Americans: The Starr County border health initiative.Diabetes Care. 2002 Feb; 25(2): 259-268.
- Elder JP, Ayala GX, Campbell NR, Arredondo EM, Slymen DJ, Baquero B, Zive M, Ganiats TG, Engelberg M. Long-term effects of a communication intervention for Spanish-dominant Latinas. Am J Prev Med. 2006 Aug; 31(2): 159-166. Epub, 2006 Jun 15. PMID: 16829333
- Ingram M, Gallegos G, Elenes J. Diabetes is a community issue: The critical elements of a successful outreach and education model on the U.S.-Mexico border. Prev Chronic Dis. 2005 Jan; 2 (1): A15. Epub 2004 Dec 15.
- Schillinger D, Hammer H, Wang F, Palacios J, McLean I, Tang A, Youmans S, Handley M. Seeing in 3-D: Examining the reach of diabetes self-management support strategies in a public health care system. Health Educ Behav. 2008 Oct; 35 (5): 664-682. Epub 2007 May 18
Search Plan and Results: HD: Cross-Cultural Communication and Nutrition Assessment/Intervention 2009