Yes, that's it.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 mins (2004-06-28 20:26:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

To assess the current management of childhood depression in primary care, researchers Jerry L. Rushton, M.D., **and colleagues** (2000) at the University of Michigan conducted a survey of general pediatricians and family physicians in North Carolina.
http://www.mhsource.com/depression/child.html

Dr. Carol Fabian **and colleagues** at the University of Kansas Medical Centre tested 480 women who were considered at high risk of breast cancer because they had a family history of the disease or because they had already had one biopsy that turned up cancerous or precancerous cells.
http://breastcancer.about.com/

Phillip A. Dennis, M.D., Ph.D., **and colleagues** from the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute (NCI), report in the January 2003 Journal of Clinical Investigation that nicotine may contribute to lung cancer by promoting the survival of lung cells, thereby allowing them to accumulate the genetic changes necessary for full cancer formation.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/nicotinestudy

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs 57 mins (2004-06-29 06:09:07 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Just a comment in relation to \'and colleagues\' or \'et al\'. \'Et al\' is used specifically for citations, whereas \'and colleagues\' or \'and co-workers\' is commonly used (in science and medicine) when people are discussing the work of others rather than specifically citing a reference e.g. Watson and colleagues first identified......(Watson et al 19XX).

That said, given that you saw it in a bibliography, et al may be appropriate here. The point is that this is not always the translation and an automatic replacement with et al is not always appropriate and could risk losing some of the \'colour\' of the text (even academic texts!).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs 20 mins (2004-06-29 16:32:21 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

After very helpful input from Elena, I think I have not been very clear. What I am trying to say is this:

- et al is almost certainly a better translation than my \'and colleagues\', particularly within the context of a bibliography.

- certain circumstances in which \'y cols\' would be used do not necessarily demand \'et al\' in the translation, and may even counsel against it. An example of the latter would be reference to the work of a research group that involves a number of publications. In this case you would be better to say \'XX and colleagues (or co-workers) published a series of articles on the subject of YYY\'. When you cited this work, the citations would contain \'et al\'.

- When talking about the work of others, rather than referring to a specific article (be it a citation or otherwise), it is also common to use \'and colleagues\' or \'and co-workers\'.

In summary, et al is almost certainly the better translation in the context given, but should not (IMHO) be taken as the \'only\' or \'right\' translation of \'y cols\' without careful attention to context.