METHOD: We conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders in Malaysia (N = 44) and Thailand (N = 50), alongside policy document review in both countries. Data were analysed thematically. Results informed development of Systems Thinking diagrams hypothesizing potential intervention points to improve cultural competency, namely via addressing language barriers.
RESULTS: Language ability was a core tenet of cultural competency as described by participants in both countries. Malay was perceived to be an easy language that migrants could learn quickly, with perceived proficiency differing by source country and length of stay in Malaysia. Language barriers were a source of frustration for both migrants and health workers, which compounded communication of complex conditions including mental health as well as obtaining informed consent from migrant patients. Health workers in Malaysia used strategies including google translate and hand gestures to communicate, while migrant patients were encouraged to bring friends to act as informal interpreters during consultations. Current health services are not migrant friendly, which deters use. Concerns around overuse of services by non-citizens among the domestic population may partly explain the lack of policy support for cultural competency in Malaysia. Service provision for migrants in Thailand was more culturally sensitive as formal interpreters, known as Migrant Health Workers (MHW), could be hired in public facilities, as well as Migrant Health Volunteers (MHV) who provide basic health education in communities.
CONCLUSION: Perceptions of overuse by migrants in a health system acts as a barrier against system or institutional level improvements for cultural competency, in an already stretched health system. At the micro-level, language interventions with migrant workers appear to be the most feasible leverage point but raises the question of who should bear responsibility for cost and provision-employers, the government, or migrants themselves.
METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted in two migrant-populated provinces using purposive and snowball sampling. A total of fifty key informants were recruited, including MHWs, MHWs, health professionals, non-governmental organisation (NGO) staff and policy stakeholders. Data were triangulated using information from policy documents. The deductive thematic analysis was classified into three main themes of evolving structure of MHW and MHV programmes, roles and responsibilities of MHWs and MHVs, and supporting systems.
RESULTS: The introduction of the MHW and MHV programmes was one of the most prominent steps taken to improve the migrant-friendliness of Thai health services. MHWs mainly served as interpreters in public facilities, while MHVs served as cultural mediators in migrant communities. Operational challenges in providing services included insufficient budgets for employment and training, diverse training curricula, and lack of legal provisions to sustain the MHW and MHV programmes.
CONCLUSION: Interpretation and cultural mediation services are hugely beneficial in addressing the health needs of migrants. To ensure the sustainability of current service provision, clear policy regulation and standardised training courses should be in place, alongside adequate and sustainable financial support from central government, NGOs, employers and migrant workers themselves. Moreover, regular monitoring and evaluation of the quality of services are recommended. Finally, a lead agency should be mandated to collaborate with stakeholders in planning the overall structure and resource allocation for the programmes.