Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34689772›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2021

Project20: interpreter services for pregnant women with social risk factors in England: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how?

Hannah Rayment-Jones, James Harris, Angela Harden, Sergio A Silverio, Cristina Fernandez Turienzo, Jane Sandall

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interventions to Address Disparities in Perinatal Outcomes by Ethnicity: A Systematic Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. The Role of Ethnicity and Migration in Perinatal Inequalities: A Retrospective Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hannah Rayment-JonesDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, 10th Floor, North Wing St. Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK. Hannah.rayment-jones@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3027-8025
James HarrisChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, Clinical Research Facility, St Stephen's Centre, 252 Fulham Road, London, SW109NA, UK.
Angela HardenSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Sergio A SilverioDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, 10th Floor, North Wing St. Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Cristina Fernandez TurienzoDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, 10th Floor, North Wing St. Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Jane SandallDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, 10th Floor, North Wing St. Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
St Thomas' Hospital · GBChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBCity, University of London · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health Research DRF-2017-10-033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlack and minority ethnic women and those with social risk factors such as deprivation, refugee and asylum seeker status, homelessness, mental health issues and domestic violence are at a disproportionate risk of poor birth outcomes. Language barriers further exacerbate this risk, with women struggling to access, engage with maternity services and communicate concerns to healthcare professionals. To address the language barrier, many UK maternity services offer telephone interpreter services. This study explores whether or not women with social risk factors find these interpreter services acceptable, accessible and safe, and to suggest solutions to address challenges.

methodsRealist methodology was used to refine previously constructed programme theories about how women with language barriers access and experience interpreter services during their maternity care. Twenty-one longitudinal interviews were undertaken during pregnancy and the postnatal period with eight non-English speaking women and their family members. Interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis to confirm, refute or refine the programme theories and identify specific contexts, mechanisms and outcomes relating to interpreter services.

resultsWomen with language barriers described difficulties accessing maternity services, a lack of choice of interpreter, suspicion around the level of confidentiality interpreter services provide, and questioned how well professional interpreters were able to interpret what they were trying to relay to the healthcare professional during appointments. This resulted in many women preferring to use a known and trusted family member or friend to interpret for them where possible. Their insights provide detailed insight into how poor-quality interpreter services impact on their ability to disclose risk factors and communicate concerns effectively with their healthcare providers. A refined programme theory puts forward mechanisms to improve their experiences and safety such as regulated, high-quality interpreter services throughout their maternity care, in which women have choice, trust and confidence.

conclusionsThe findings of this study contribute to concerns highlighted in previous literature around interpreter services in the wider healthcare arena, particularly around the lack of regulation and access to high-quality interpretation. This is thought to have a significant effect on pregnant women who are living socially complex lives as they are not able to communicate their concerns and access support. This not only impacts on their safety and pregnancy outcomes, but also their wider holistic needs. The refined program theory developed in this study offers insights into the mechanisms of equitable access to appropriate interpreter services for pregnant women with language barriers.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesPregnant PeopleAllied Health PersonnelCommunication BarriersFemaleHumansPregnancyRisk FactorsInterpretationLanguage barriersMaternity servicesNon-English speakingTranslation

Identifiers

PMID34689772
PMCPMC8543874
OpenAlexW3210382150

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.