Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35679099›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Video Relay Interpretation and Overcoming Barriers in Health Care for Deaf Users: Scoping Review.

Minerva Rivas Velarde, Caroline Jagoe, Jessica Cuculick

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Minerva Rivas VelardeDepartment of Radiology and Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneve, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3747-3306
Caroline JagoeDepartment of Clinical Speech & Language Studies, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-3015-1550
Jessica CuculickDepartment of Liberal Studies, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6018-3812

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersons who are deaf are more likely to avoid health care providers than those who can hear, partially because of the lack of means of communication with these providers and the dearth of available interpreters. The use of video remote interpretation, namely the video camera on an electronic device, to connect deaf patients and health providers has rapidly expanded owing to its flexibility and advantageous cost compared with in-person sign language interpretation. Thus, we need to learn more about how this technology could effectively engage with and respond to the priorities of its users.

objectiveWe aimed to identify existing evidence regarding the use of video remote interpretation (VRI) in health care settings and to assess whether VRI technology can enable deaf users to overcome barriers to interpretation and improve communication outcomes between them and health care personnel.

methodsWe conducted a search in 7 medical research databases (including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar) from 2006 including bibliographies and citations of relevant papers. The searches included articles in English, Spanish, and French. The eligibility criteria for study selection included original articles on the use of VRI for deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) sign language users for, or within, health care.

resultsFrom the original 176 articles identified, 120 were eliminated after reading the article title and abstract, and 41 articles were excluded after they were fully read. In total, 15 articles were included in this study: 4 studies were literature reviews, 4 were surveys, 3 were qualitative studies, and 1 was a mixed methods study that combined qualitative and quantitative data, 1 brief communication, 1 quality improvement report, and 1 secondary analysis. In this scoping review, we identified a knowledge gap regarding the quality of interpretation and training in sign language interpretation for health care. It also shows that this area is underresearched, and evidence is scant. All evidence came from high-income countries, which is particularly problematic given that most DHH persons live in low- and middle-income countries.

conclusionsFurthering our understanding of the use of VRI technology is pertinent and relevant. The available literature shows that VRI may enable deaf users to overcome interpretation barriers and can potentially improve communication outcomes between them and health personnel within health care services. For VRI to be acceptable, sign language users require a VRI system supported by devices with large screens and a reliable internet connection, as well as qualified interpreters trained on medical interpretation.

Indexed as

Communication BarriersPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansLanguageSign Languageaccessibilitycommunicationdeafnessdeaf usersdisabilityhealth careinterpretermedical interpretationmobile phoneremote interpretationsign languagesystemvideo

Identifiers

PMID35679099
PMCPMC9227653

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.