Trial reportJournal of immigrant and minority health2021
Do Standardized Scripts Improve Interpreter Use by Spanish-Speaking Patients?
Trial report in Journal of immigrant and minority health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to Increase Professional Interpreting in Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Communication Barriers in Patient-Provider Interactions in Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Experiences of communication in the neonatal intensive care unit for mothers with a preferred language other than English.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
- Disparities in eye clinic patient encounters among patients requiring language interpreter services.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with limited English-proficiency (LEP) who need but do not receive interpreters have lower satisfaction and poorer understanding. A knowledge gap remains regarding the optimal way to offer interpreters. Using standardized scripts, we will determine whether the questions we use to offer interpreters increase utilization. Pilot prospective cohort study of postpartum mothers with LEP. Subjects were assigned one of three unique scripted question offering an interpreter. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. Fifty-five LEP patients were randomized into three study arms with similar sociodemographics. Overall interpreter use was 80% (44/55). There was a significant difference in interpreter utilization: 82.4%, 63.6%, 100%, respectively by arm (p = 0.015). Highest interpreter utilization occurred with "In what language do you prefer to receive your medical care?". There is opportunity for providers to refine the way they offer interpreters to optimize utilization.
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.