Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35693366›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Interpreter Use and Patient Satisfaction in the Otolaryngology Outpatient Clinic.

Hyeon Soh, Matthew L Rohlfing, Katherine R Keefe, Alexander D Valentine, Pieter J Noordzij, Christopher D Brook, Jessica Levi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effect of Language Interpreter Modalities on Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Workflow: A Pilot Study in a Multidisciplinary Pediatric Craniofacial Clinic.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Hyeon SohOtolaryngology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, USA.
Matthew L RohlfingOtolaryngology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, USA.
Katherine R KeefeOtolaryngology, University of Utah Hospital, Salt Lake City, USA.
Alexander D ValentineOphthalmology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Pieter J NoordzijOtolaryngology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, USA.
Christopher D BrookOtolaryngology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, USA.
Jessica LeviOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston, USA.
Michigan Medicine · USBoston Medical Center · USBoston University · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Utah Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Communication between providers and patients is essential to patient care and to the patient-physician relationship. It plays a significant role in both measurable and perceived quality of care. This study explores the satisfaction of English-speaking and limited English proficiency (LEP) patients with English-speaking providers, focusing on the correlation between patients' primary language and the use of interpreter services on patients' visit satisfaction. Methodology This study was designed to have a sample size sufficient to detect a 10% difference in the primary outcome, overall visit satisfaction, between language-concordant patients and LEP patients in the interpreter and no interpreter groups, assuming a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%. All collected data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software, version 25 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA), and significance was determined if p <0.05. Results Of the total 209 patients, 65 utilized professional interpreter services, nine used an ad-hoc interpreter, and 135 did not require an interpreter. Patients who used an interpreter demonstrated lower visit satisfaction compared with patients who did not (p < 0.001). Patients expressed significantly greater preference for in-person interpreter (mean = 9.73) or a family member (mean = 9.44) compared to telephone services (mean = 8.50) (p = 0.002). The overall satisfaction scores did not significantly differ between different interpreter types (p = 0.157). Conclusions LEP patients experienced lower visit satisfaction compared to language-concordant patients. The data suggest that perceived quality of communication was a factor in these lower satisfaction reports. While LEP patients did prefer in-person interpreters, there was no significant difference in overall visit satisfaction between different types of interpreters.

Indexed as

communicationinterpreterlimited english proficiencypatient satisfactionquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID35693366
PMCPMC9175069
OpenAlexW4229375092

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.