ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2015
Modeling workflow to design machine translation applications for public health practice.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Generative Artificial Intelligence Implementation Impacts in Social and Health Care Language Translation: Mixed Methods Case Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- The Use of Machine Translation for Outreach and Health Communication in Epidemiology and Public Health: Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Public Health, Population Health, and Epidemiology Informatics: Recent Research and Trends in the United States.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017Review
- PHAST: A Collaborative Machine Translation and Post-Editing Tool for Public Health.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveProvide a detailed understanding of the information workflow processes related to translating health promotion materials for limited English proficiency individuals in order to inform the design of context-driven machine translation (MT) tools for public health (PH). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe applied a cognitive work analysis framework to investigate the translation information workflow processes of two large health departments in Washington State. Researchers conducted interviews, performed a task analysis, and validated results with PH professionals to model translation workflow and identify functional requirements for a translation system for PH.
resultsThe study resulted in a detailed description of work related to translation of PH materials, an information workflow diagram, and a description of attitudes towards MT technology. We identified a number of themes that hold design implications for incorporating MT in PH translation practice. A PH translation tool prototype was designed based on these findings. DISCUSSION: This study underscores the importance of understanding the work context and information workflow for which systems will be designed. Based on themes and translation information workflow processes, we identified key design guidelines for incorporating MT into PH translation work. Primary amongst these is that MT should be followed by human review for translations to be of high quality and for the technology to be adopted into practice.
conclusionThe time and costs of creating multilingual health promotion materials are barriers to translation. PH personnel were interested in MT's potential to improve access to low-cost translated PH materials, but expressed concerns about ensuring quality. We outline design considerations and a potential machine translation tool to best fit MT systems into PH practice.
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.