There were differences between the Arabic and English-speaking groups (Table 6) both in the way they responded to the information presented and in their general information needs.
The way participants responded to the information presented
Most of the Arabic groups preferred to remove the word risk from the graphs and to replace it by “normal” “above normal” and “below normal”, and they thought that the normal values should be between 5 to 7 (7 is medically considered problematic). English speaking groups had no problem with the work “risk”.Also, in the Arabic-speaking groups, participants largely favoured having their pictures on the report as a way of personalising and identify them. In the English speaking group they largely preferred not to have their pictures on the report as they thought it was costly and time consuming and because of vanity issues.
Most Arabic groups equally preferred the three-speed meter and graph that had a legend label, whereas most English groups preferred the graph that had a legend label. However, some participants from all groups said the one speed meter is better for new patients.
The two groups all responded with concern to the stories of heart disease, kidney failure, amputation and eye disease. In the English-speaking group they could not differentiate their concern and thought they needed to act to prevent all of these conditions. In the Arabic-speaking groups they were able to differentiate a little and in one of the Arabic-speaking groups they were most concerned about blindness.
General Information Needs
The English groups stated that the full report had too much information for new patients but that they would be happy to get a detailed report of this nature at a later stage. The English groups also preferred the information to be changed each visit for variety.Arabic speakers felt overall that they lacked information about their condition in Arabic and were keen for any information that could clarify for them what their pathology reports meant and what responses were required from them. They had a heightened sense of not having information compared to the English speaking groups. While they found a lot of the pictorial information helpful, those who could read preferred that the whole report be in Arabic.
Also, in the Arabic-speaking group 5 out of 19 were illiterate (could not read or write in any language). This distribution occurred by chance in the sample but illiteracy is common in Arabic speaking countries, particularly among women, so it is likely that materials targeting Arabic speaking groups need to account for this issue.
Finally, there were more issues in the Arabic-speaking group about sharing medical information with relatives:
- There was greater concern in the Arabic-speaking group about the stress that might be caused to family members if they were shown the report.
- In the Arabic groups, participants were divided in terms of going to the doctor with somebody else; some of them preferred to go alone to protect their privacy and some preferred to go with somebody else to help and care. In contrast, in the English-speaking group all were happy to take a relative.
Table 6: A summary of differences detected between the Arabic speaking and English speaking groups
| Arabic speaking groups | English speaking groups |
|---|---|
| Preferred to remove the word risk and to replace it by “normal” “above normal” and “below normal” | Had no problem with the word “risk” |
| Divided in terms of going to the doctor with somebody else; going alone to protect their privacy; and going with somebody else to help and care | Were happy to take a relative to the doctor |
| Concerned about the stress that might be caused to family members if they were shown the report | |
| Largely favoured having their pictures on the report as a way of personalising and identify them. | Largely preferred not to have their pictures on the report as they thought it was costly and time consuming |
| The worst two risks were heart attack and blindness. | The worst risks were blindness, heart attack and leg amputation |
| Preferred the one speed meter and graph that had a legend label | Preferred the graph that had a legend label |
 | Preferred the information to be changed each visit for variety |
| Preferred to add a space to record the daily sugar level test | |
| Preferred to divide the foods into two types; foods that increase sugar level and food that reduce sugar level | |