Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30728030›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Implementing a digital communication assistance tool to collect the medical history of refugee patients: DICTUM Friedland - an action-oriented mixed methods study protocol.

Ghefar Furaijat, Evelyn Kleinert, Anne Simmenroth, Frank Müller

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Usability of technological tools to overcome language barriers in healthcare- a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Ghefar FuraijatDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Centre Göttingen/Georg-August-University, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany. ghefar.furaijat@med.uni-goettingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3517-2959
Evelyn KleinertDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Centre Göttingen/Georg-August-University, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Anne SimmenrothDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Centre Göttingen/Georg-August-University, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Frank MüllerDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Centre Göttingen/Georg-August-University, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

European Social Fund Antrags.Nr-ZAM 5-650160431Land Niedersachsen Nds. MBI. (N4.22/2014. S.437ff)Robert Bosch Stiftung 12.5.A000.0014.0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLanguage barriers play a decisive role in determining the outcomes of medical consultations between healthcare providers and their foreign patients. This issue is a significant challenge to the German healthcare system, especially with the rising number of refugees in recent years. The communication gap between healthcare professionals and their non-German speaking patients sometimes leads to unnecessary medical re-admission, insufficient medical history, incorrect diagnosis, and treatment plans. In this study, we aim to assess the usability and accuracy of a novel digital translation tool in collecting medical history from patients in their native language and to check its effects on healthcare outcomes.

methodsThe study aims to monitor the implementation of a new digital communication assistance tool (DCAT) and to investigate its impact on the mutual understanding between refugee patients and their German general practitioners (GPs). In the first study phase, an action-oriented approach is used to implement DCAT. In the second study phase, DCAT use will be evaluated with a mixed methods design. The main outcome assesses the re-consultation rates of patients before and after using DCAT. Secondary outcomes include the usability of the tool, its acceptance and perceived quality by patients, the accuracy of the information collected as determined from analysing the reasons for the consultation (ICPC-2 codes), and diagnosis (ICD-10 codes). The acceptance by patients, socio-demographic factors and native language are also taken into account. The research designs for both study phases include questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, non-participant observation and analysis of collected patients' data. All the collected data is pseudonymised. DISCUSSION: The DCAT study is one of the new research projects in primary healthcare investigating the usability, accuracy, and acceptance of digital translation tools during medical encounters. We aim to eliminate significant communication errors and misunderstandings in medical consultations, thereby improving the quality of healthcare outcomes. By applying an action research design, we will attain a more comprehensive evaluation of DCAT scopes and limits. The results of this study are expected to give an in-depth understanding of possible applications and benefits of digital translation tools for patient care.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00013076 , 29/09/2017.

Indexed as

Communication BarriersMedical History TakingRefugeesTranslatingAdultClinical Studies as TopicCommunicationComprehensionDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareFemaleGermanyHealth PersonnelHumansLanguageMaleDigitalInterpretationMedical historyPrimary healthcareRefugees and asylum seekers

Identifiers

PMID30728030
PMCPMC6366114

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.