Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19138392›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2009

Access to interpreting services in England: secondary analysis of national data.

Paramjit S Gill, Aparna Shankar, Terry Quirke, Nick Freemantle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Addressing language as a barrier to healthcare access and quality.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The challenge of communication in interpreted consultations in diabetes care: a mixed methods study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Paramjit S GillSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. p.s.gill@bham.ac.uk
Aparna Shankar
Terry Quirke
Nick Freemantle

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOvercoming language barriers to health care is a global challenge. There is great linguistic diversity in the major cities in the UK with more than 300 languages, excluding dialects, spoken by children in London alone. However, there is dearth of data on the number of non-English speakers for planning effective interpreting services. The aim was to estimate the number of people requiring language support amongst the minority ethnic communities in England.

methodsSecondary analysis of national representative sample of subjects recruited to the Health Surveys for England 1999 and 2004.

results298,432 individuals from the four main minority ethnic communities (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese) who may be unable to communicate effectively with a health professional. This represents 2,520,885 general practice consultations per year where interpreting services might be required.

conclusionEffective interpreting services are required to improve access and health outcomes of non-English speakers and thereby facilitate a reduction in health inequalities.

Indexed as

Communication BarriersTranslationsAdolescentAdultAge FactorsEnglandEthnicityFemaleHealth ServicesHealth SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeeds AssessmentPhysician-Patient RelationsPopulation Surveillance

Identifiers

PMID19138392
PMCPMC2654558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.