Mindfulness interventions for physical and psychological outcomes in cancer patients and caregivers: Non‐English literature may be lost in translation due to language bias

Key points Although mindfulness practices have originated in East Asia, including non‐English literature in systematic reviews of mindfulness interventions for cancer care will enable researchers to explore its application in various cultural contexts. A systematic analysis of online bibliographic d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psycho-oncology (Chichester, England) England), 2021-11, Vol.30 (11), p.1990-1994
Main Authors: Nnate, Daniel A., Igwe, Sylvester E., Abaraogu, Ukachukwu O.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
bibliometric analysis
Cancer
Caregivers
Caregivers - psychology
Clinical outcomes
English language
English literature
Humans
Language
language bias
Mental health care
Mindfulness
Neoplasms - psychology
Neoplasms - therapy
non‐English literature
Oncology
psycho‐oncology
Stress, Psychological
supportive care
systematic reviews
Translation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Key points Although mindfulness practices have originated in East Asia, including non‐English literature in systematic reviews of mindfulness interventions for cancer care will enable researchers to explore its application in various cultural contexts. A systematic analysis of online bibliographic databases: AMED, Embase, CINHAL, LILACS, MEDLINE, ProQuest Central, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, and WoS revealed that non‐English literature accounted for 2.72% of original research papers on mindfulness where no language restriction was applied. This suggests that the exclusion of non‐English literature in systematic reviews on mindfulness interventions for cancer care may not lead to a biased effect size if a search is restricted to articles indexed in an English language‐specific database. In comparison, an exploratory analysis of the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database revealed a higher percentage, up to 19.2% of indexed non‐English language literature. The authors caution that results of systematic reviews of mindfulness interventions that exclude non‐English databases may still constitute a biased generalizability because most literature published in non‐English journals are not indexed in major research databases.
ISSN:1057-9249
1099-1611
DOI:10.1002/pon.5762