Tall trees; weak roots? A model of barriers to English language proficiency confronting displaced medical healthcare professionals

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Although language assessments for medical professionals in the UK are changing, there is still a need for them to demonstrate their proficiency in English before working in the National Health Service (NHS). When providing English for specific purposes (ESP) courses for retraining refugee doctors, we need to consider all the potential barriers that every language learner faces, as well as professional barriers that may challenge them as a specific group. The following article examines the linguistic (and psycholinguistic) barriers that confront this intelligent, motivated and diligent group of people, and puts forward a model that teachers, course planners and material designers may use for their English language training.

Related collections

Most cited references 22

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

INTERLANGUAGE

Larry Selinker (1972)

0 comments Cited 82 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book: not found

Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change

B NORTON, B Norton, B. Norton Peirce … (2000)

0 comments Cited 43 times – based on 0 reviews

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?

S Piantadosi, C Covahey, S. Grossman (1994)

This study was conducted to assess the readability of informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology protocols. One hundred thirty-seven consent forms from 88 protocols that accrued patients at The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center were quantitatively analyzed. These included 58 of 99 (59%) institutional protocols approved by The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center's Clinical Research Committee and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) over a 2-year period, and 30 active Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) trials. The consent forms described phase I (17%), phase I/II (36%), phase III (29%), and nontherapeutic (18%) studies. Each was optically scanned, checked for accuracy, and analyzed using readability software. The following three readability indices were obtained for each consent form: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, and grade level readability as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and the Gunning Fog Index. The mean +/- SD Flesch Reading Ease Score for the consent forms was 52.6 +/- 8.7 (range, 33 to 78). The mean grade level was 11.1 +/- 1.67 (range, 6 to 14) using the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and 14.1 +/- 1.8 (range, 8 to 17) using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability at or below an eighth-grade level was found in 6% of the consent forms using the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and in 1% using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability was similar for consent forms that described institutional, cooperative group, and phase I, II, and III protocols. Consent forms from clinical oncology protocols are written at a level that is difficult for most patients to read, despite national, cooperative group, institutional, and departmental review. The consent process, which is crucial to clinical research, should be strengthened by improving the readability of the consent forms.