Highlights of the Research Agendas
The successes and limitations of the existing impact literature on cultural competence point to substantial
opportunities for future research in each of the identified categories. Using both descriptive and quantitative
approaches, this research can further illuminate the details of cultural competence interventions as well as
specific impacts on health care delivery outcomes.
The major task of this project was to propose future research directions in the area of cultural competence
and health care delivery and health outcomes. By analyzing the literature, the project team was able to
identify areas where the current research was weak or lacking, and suggest areas and questions for further
exploration. These efforts were buttressed by the discussions and recommendations of the RAC, both
during the April 2001 RAC meeting and in subsequent reviews of the research agenda drafts.
The major product of this endeavor is the group of research agendas. Each research agenda contains a definition of the category, a brief
synthesis of findings from the literature, key research questions, and a discussion
of methodological and policy considerations influencing future research for
The research agendas reflect that some of the topic areas were backed by a greater body of literature and/or generated more interest from RAC members. The extensive agenda developed for the language assistance
interventions category mirrors its prominence among both health care providers and policymakers. It
is also the agenda best supported by previous research related to outcomes. Additional topics generating
significant interest included cultural competence education and training, and racial, ethnic and linguistic
concordance. The topic of organizational supports generated a broad list of questions, although the majority
of these focused on their effect on the processes of health care delivery and not on health outcomes.
It is interesting to note that as stakeholder interest and investment in implementing certain interventions
increases (e.g., interpreter services, hiring for diversity, cultural competence training), so too does the demand
for concrete linkages between an intervention and outcomes, especially cost-related benefits.
Conversely, there are many providers who are willing to undertake these interventions without "proof of value," perhaps simply due to consumer demand for such interventions or because the face value of the
intervention is obvious. Many RAC members pointed out that, methodological and funding challenges aside,
the importance of outcomes research on cultural competence interventions should not be overstated, given
that many cultural competence interventions have already been implemented despite the lack of rigorously
conducted, definitive outcomes studies.
The following highlights of the Cultural Competence Research Agenda are organized into three groups of
cultural competence interventions:
A complete list of research questions can be found in Part 2 of the full report.
Category A: Culturally Sensitive Interventions
Cultural Competence Education and Training
Among the activities listed under Category A, cultural competence education and training generates considerable
interest among providers, educators, and policymakers for its potential impact on improving the patient-
provider relationship when cultural differences exist. While the descriptive literature on this topic is
extensive, studies that examine the impact of training on either trainees and patients is more limited. Some
connections are made with increases in levels of cultural knowledge, attitudes and awareness, and improvements
in communication skills among trainees. Few studies examined the impact of training on health care
delivery, patient behavior change, or health outcomes. The topic and the literature, however, were sufficient
to inspire a substantial number of future research questions. These include questions that seek to better
understand and define the intervention related to:
- Trainees and motivation (e.g., what incentives are sufficient to motivate clinicians to undertake
cultural competence training—improved patient-provider relationship, improved health outcomes,
- Content of training (e.g., what competencies and basic skills produce behavioral changes by
trainees and improvement in health and health care delivery outcomes?)
- Form of training (e.g., which educational delivery techniques are most effective at changing
Another category of questions seeks to measure the impact of training on both providers and patients. These
include questions on:
- Achieving behavioral changes among trainees (e.g., what degree of knowledge or awareness
translates into action? Is there a dose-response relationship for certain training interventions,
and what is the minimum intervention that will result in acceptable outcomes?)
- Measuring impact on health care delivery and health outcomes (e.g., do patients of providers
who have received training show improvements in satisfaction, adherence to treatment recommendations,
keeping recommended follow-up visits, etc.?)
Racial, Ethnic, and Linguistic Concordance
The topic of racial, ethnic and linguistic concordance among providers and patients has already generated
considerable research interest. The literature suggests that some patients from multicultural groups prefer to
seek care from providers of their own race, ethnicity, or language group, and that such concordance appeared
to have a positive impact on appropriate service utilization, treatment participation, and receipt of
some services. However, the literature on the effects of positive outcomes in utilization was not shown to
translate into improvements in health outcomes. Many health care organizations and policymakers have
pursued diversification of the workforce as a way of increasing patient-provider concordance, although
others are skeptical, given the demographic difficulties of achieving this goal across-the-board. Nevertheless,
ongoing research in this area can also be of considerable value for what it illuminates about crosscultural
health care encounters. Key research questions focus on:
- Concordance and the clinical encounter (e.g., what can we learn from concordant encounters
about factors that could be emulated in non-concordant encounters?).
- Patient-related health care delivery and health outcomes (e.g., does concordance affect patient/consumer comprehension, satisfaction, appropriate utilization of services, adherence to treatment,
perceived health status and/or quality of life measures?).
- Clinician-related outcomes (e.g., does concordance have an effect on clinician behavior/perceptions?
Measures could include time spent with patients/consumers, number of treatment
options discussed, level of interaction, number of questions the patient is allowed to ask, negotiation
of treatment options, clinician perceptions of effectiveness of his/her efforts.).
- The impact of concordance on organizations (e.g., does the overall level of staff awareness and
sensitivity to cultural issues improve when there is diversity throughout the organization?).
Community Health Workers and Culturally Competent Health Promotion
Both these topics have already been extensively researched, although not necessarily with a specific focus
on the effect of the culturally competent aspect of the interventions. Studies suggest linkages between the
intervention and increases in health-care-related knowledge, self-care practices, screening rates, and decreases
in risk behaviors. Both types of interventions could benefit from further research in the following
- What is the impact on knowledge, behavioral change, and/or health outcomes of community
health workers (CHW) and culturally competent health promotion (CCHP) programs versus
standard interventions? Versus no intervention?
- Is there a significant improvement in health care delivery and/or health outcomes when the
intervention is highly tailored to subgroups and subcultures as opposed to generalized culturally
competent health promotion programs?
- Which elements of the culturally sensitive methods utilized by CHW and CCHP programs
improve access, quality and utilization of services?
Return to Contents
Category B: Language Assistance
Language Barriers, Bilingual Services, Oral Interpretation, and
Translated Written Materials
The literature on the impact of language barriers and language assistance interventions is both substantial
and promising with respect to outcomes. Studies show that language barriers have a demonstrable negative
impact on communication, satisfaction, and appropriate health care utilization. A growing body of literature
suggests that language assistance interventions such as oral interpretation can have a positive effect on
patient satisfaction and comprehension, and improvements on health care delivery measures such as increases
in the amount of time spent with patients, reduction in diagnostic testing disparities among English-speaking patients versus limited English proficient (LEP) patients, higher clinic return rates, and increases in
primary care services utilization.
The research agenda on this topic is divided into four areas around which to structure future research
efforts on language assistance:
- Impact research (e.g., what is the impact of untrained interpreters versus trained interpreters on
- Cost-related research (e.g., what are the cost-benefits of different types of language assistance
services and of not providing interpreter services?).
- Organizational research (e.g., what are the human resource management considerations, including cost, involved in using bilingual staff who have other responsibilities as ad hoc interpreters?).
- Translation and miscellaneous topics (e.g., do translated prescription instructions lead to fewer
patient medication errors and/or better adherence?).
Return to Contents
Category C: Organizational Supports for Cultural Competence
The research agenda identifies eight types of organizational supports for cultural competence. These are
primarily management activities not expected to have a direct impact on health outcomes, but intended to
improve health care delivery to culturally diverse populations.
To date, both descriptive and process-related outcomes research on these activities is very limited. However,
a number of research questions were identified that would better define these interventions and investigate
potential links between them and improved organizational efficiency. They include research related to:
- Management, policy and implementation strategies to institutionalize cultural competence activities
(e.g., does the existence of explicit plans and strategies for the implementation of cultural
competence interventions facilitate and improve the delivery of those services over an ad hoc
- Community involvement in CLAS program planning, design, implementation, governance, training,
and research (e.g., does having ethnic community advisory committees or other mechanisms
of community input have a measurable and beneficial effect on the successful implementation
and acceptance of plans, policies, and programs of culturally competent interventions,
either at the organizational or programmatic level?).
- Design and use of surveys and profile instruments to plan for services and measure satisfaction,
quality of services (e.g., what level of community input, data gathering and testing is necessary
to develop culturally valid tools for information gathering, as many health care organizations
have neither the time nor resources to engage in complex survey development processes for the
purposes of service planning and design? Are there model instruments or templates that can be
easily adapted? What are the benefits of the process of involving the community in survey
design, above and beyond implementing an acceptable tool?).
- Cultural competence self assessments (e.g., what impact does the implementation of organizational
self-assessments have on motivating improvements on cultural competence within the
organization, and overall organizational strategic planning?).
- Ethnic data collection/community profiles (e.g., does the easy availability of race/ethnicity/language
data improve the timely delivery of culturally competent services, such as insuring an
interpreter is present for appointments, sending materials in the appropriate language, or assigning
enrollees to a concordant clinician if the enrollee doesn't select a clinician?).
Return to Contents
Summary of Methodological and Practical Considerations
While there is a high level of interest in the results of research on cultural competence interventions, the
RAC identified several methodological challenges to conducting such research. These include lack of:
- Standardized definitions of the interventions.
- Standardized evaluative measures.
- Culturally competent instruments.
- Secondary data sources with uniform racial, ethnic, and language data.
An additional challenge is the large sample size that is required to prove that cultural competence interventions
are more effective than similar interventions that are not designed to be culturally competent.
The RAC also identified various factors that impede the funding and publication of cultural competence
research. RAC members thought that funders and journal reviewers tended to lack familiarity with the
impact of language and culture on health care delivery and viewed cultural competence research as marginal
and/or high risk. This was thought to make some funders unwilling to expend the amounts of money
necessary to show linkages between cultural competence interventions and health outcomes, and journals
unwilling to accept manuscripts. Researchers, in turn, may therefore consider cultural competence studies
to be a high risk undertaking.
These challenges, as well as the RAC's suggestions for addressing them, are discussed in further detail in Part
3 of the full report.
For information on the Office of Minority Health, go to
Return to Contents
Brach, C., and Fraser, I. (2000). Can cultural competency reduce racial and ethnic disparities? A review and conceptual model. Med Care Res Rev 57(Suppl 1):181-217.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Secretary. (2000). National standards on culturally and linguistically appropriate services (CLAS) in health care. Federal Register 65(247):80865-79.
Return to Contents
Current as of August 2004
Fortier JP, Bishop D. Setting the Agenda for Research on Cultural Competence in Health Care. Brach C, editor. August 2004. Office of Minority Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/cultural.htm