Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30964446›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

Language Translation Apps in Health Care Settings: Expert Opinion.

Anita Panayiotou, Anastasia Gardner, Sue Williams, Emiliano Zucchi, Monita Mascitti-Meuter, Anita My Goh, Emily You, Terence Wh Chong, Dina Logiudice, Xiaoping Lin and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Anita PanayiotouNational Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7881-8676
Anastasia GardnerNational Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2172-3294
Sue WilliamsNational Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6391-7700
Emiliano ZucchiNorthern Health, Epping, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3289-0493
Monita Mascitti-MeuterSt Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2284-2394
Anita My GohNational Ageing Research Institute , Parkville, VIC, Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, University of Melbourne, Melbourne Health, Parkville VIC, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0159-5926
Emily YouAcademic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1536-0952
Terence Wh ChongSt Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2432-8193
Dina LogiudiceMelbourne Health, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0391-3898
Xiaoping LinNational Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8785-0694
Betty HaralambousNational Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3226-5084
Frances BatchelorNational Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7302-7293
National Ageing Research Institute · AUSt Vincent's Hospital Melbourne · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUMelbourne Health · AUNorthern Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, over 300 languages are spoken in Australian homes. People without proficient English from non-English speaking countries may not receive equitable care if their health care workers do not speak their primary language. Use of professional interpreters is considered the gold standard; however, for a variety of reasons, it is often limited to key aspects of care such as diagnosis and consent. With the emergence of mobile technologies, health care workers are increasingly using digital translation tools to fill this gap. However, many of these technologies have not been developed for health care settings and their use has not been evaluated.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate iPad-compatible language translation apps to determine their suitability for enabling everyday conversations in health care settings.

methodsTranslation apps were identified by searching the Apple iTunes Store and published and grey literature. Criteria for inclusion were that the apps were available at no cost, able to translate at least one of the top 10 languages spoken in Australia, and available for use on iPad. Apps that met inclusion criteria were reviewed in 2 stages. Stage 1 was the feature analysis conducted by 2 independent researchers, where apps were evaluated for offline use, input and output methods, and number of languages. Stage 2 was the analysis of suitability for everyday communication in the health care setting, conducted by 2 independent professionals with expertise in translation and cross-cultural communication. Apps that enabled key aspects of care normally within the realm of professional interpreters, such as assessment, treatment and discharge planning, and seeking consent for medical treatments, were considered unsuitable.

resultsIn total, 15 apps were evaluated. Of these, 8 apps contained voice-to-voice and voice-to-text translation options. In addition, 6 apps were restricted to using preset health phrases, whereas 1 app used a combination of free input and preset phrases. However, 5 apps were excluded before stage 2. In addition, 6 of the 10 remaining apps reviewed in stage 2 were specifically designed for health care translation purposes. Of these, 2 apps were rated as suitable for everyday communication in the health care setting-culturally and linguistically diverse Assist and Talk To Me. Both apps contained simple and appropriate preset health phrases and did not contain conversations that are normally within the realm of professional interpreters.

conclusionsAll iPad-compatible translation apps require a degree of caution and consideration when used in health care settings, and none should replace professional interpreters. However, some apps may be suitable for everyday conversations, such as those that enable preset phrases to be translated on subject matters that do not require a professional interpreter. Further research into the use of translation technology for these types of conversations is needed.

Indexed as

TranslatingAustraliaCommunication BarriersHealth Care SectorHumansMobile ApplicationsTechnology Assessment, Biomedicalcommunicationhealth carelanguagetechnology

Identifiers

PMID30964446
PMCPMC6477569
OpenAlexW2907053370

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.