Trial reportPloS one2012
Self-assessed competency at working with a medical interpreter is not associated with knowledge of good practice.
Trial report in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cultural competency of GP trainees and GP trainers: a cross-sectional survey study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024Article
- Assessing Medical Student Readiness to Navigate Language Barriers in Telehealth: Cross-sectional Survey Study.JMIR medical education · 2022Article
- Healthcare Professionals' Views of Working with Medical Interpreters in a Cancer Setting: an Exploratory Study.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Article
- Overcoming language barriers, enhancing collaboration with interpreters - an interprofessional learning intervention (Interpret2Improve).BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Health care professional's communication through an interpreter where language barriers exist in neonatal care: a national study.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- A students' survey of cultural competence as a basis for identifying gaps in the medical curriculum.BMC medical education · 2014Article
- Interpreter-mediated diabetes consultations: a qualitative analysis of physician communication practices.BMC family practice · 2013Article
- English language proficiency and the accommodations for language non-concordance amongst patients utilizing chiropractic college teaching clinics.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpecific knowledge and skills are needed to work effectively with an interpreter, but most doctors have received limited training. Self-assessed competency may not accurately identify training needs. PURPOSES: The purpose of this study is to explore the association between self-assessed competency at working with an interpreter and the ability to identify elements of good practice, using a written vignette.
methodsA mailed questionnaire was sent to 619 doctors and medical students in Geneva, Switzerland.
results58.6% of respondents considered themselves to be highly competent at working with a professional interpreter, but 22% failed to mention even one element of good practice in response to the vignette, and only 39% could name more than one. There was no association between self-rated competency and number of elements mentioned.
conclusionsTraining efforts should challenge the assumption that working with an interpreter is intuitive. Evaluation of clinicians' ability to work with an interpreter should not be limited to self-ratings. In the context of large-scale surveys, written vignettes may provide a simple method for identifying knowledge of good practice and topics requiring further training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.