Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26357948›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Overcoming language barriers in healthcare: A protocol for investigating safe and effective communication when patients or clinicians use a second language.

Renata F I Meuter, Cindy Gallois, Norman S Segalowitz, Andrew G Ryder, Julia Hocking

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Health care access from the rural perspective: A narrative review.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Renata F I MeuterSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. r.meuter@qut.edu.au.
Cindy GalloisSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Norman S SegalowitzSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Andrew G RyderDepartment of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Julia HockingSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMiscommunication in the healthcare sector can be life-threatening. The rising number of migrant patients and foreign-trained staff means that communication errors between a healthcare practitioner and patient when one or both are speaking a second language are increasingly likely. However, there is limited research that addresses this issue systematically. This protocol outlines a hospital-based study examining interactions between healthcare practitioners and their patients who either share or do not share a first language. Of particular interest are the nature and efficacy of communication in language-discordant conversations, and the degree to which risk is communicated. Our aim is to understand language barriers and miscommunication that may occur in healthcare settings between patients and healthcare practitioners, especially where at least one of the speakers is using a second (weaker) language. METHODS/

designEighty individual interactions between patients and practitioners who speak either English or Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese) as their first language will be video recorded in a range of in- and out-patient departments at three hospitals in the Metro South area of Brisbane, Australia. All participants will complete a language background questionnaire. Patients will also complete a short survey rating the effectiveness of the interaction. Recordings will be transcribed and submitted to both quantitative and qualitative analyses to determine elements of the language used that might be particularly problematic and the extent to which language concordance and discordance impacts on the quality of the patient-practitioner consultation. DISCUSSION: Understanding the role that language plays in creating barriers to healthcare is critical for healthcare systems that are experiencing an increasing range of culturally and linguistically diverse populations both amongst patients and practitioners. The data resulting from this study will inform policy and practical solutions for communication training, provide an agenda for future research, and extend theory in health communication.

Indexed as

CommunicationCommunication BarriersDelivery of Health CareMultilingualismPatient SafetyProfessional-Patient RelationsAdultEthnicityFemaleHumansLanguageOutpatientsQueenslandSurveys and QuestionnairesTransients and MigrantsVideotape Recording

Identifiers

PMID26357948
PMCPMC4566365

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.