Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36816444›Full record

ReviewJournal of migration and health2023

Interpreter services and effect on healthcare - a systematic review of the impact of different types of interpreters on patient outcome.

Morten Heath, Anne Mette Fløe Hvass, Christian Morberg Wejse

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of migration and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Prevalence of Professional Interpreter Use in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Morten HeathAarhus University, Nordre Ringgade 1, Frederiks Alle 160, 3. Sal, Aarhus 8000, Denmark.
Anne Mette Fløe HvassAarhus University, Nordre Ringgade 1, Frederiks Alle 160, 3. Sal, Aarhus 8000, Denmark.
Christian Morberg WejseAarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, Aarhus 8200, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Utilization of interpreters to facilitate communication between health care providers and non-native speaking patients is essential to provide the best possible quality of care. Yet use and policy on the subject vary widely, as does knowledge on the effect of different types of interpreters. This paper systematically reviews the literature on use of interpreters in the medical setting to evaluate their effects on the quality of care. Material and methods: We conducted a literature search of PubMed and Embase, supplemented with references from relevant previous literature. We included any report in a medical setting comparing one type of interpretation to any other, including no interpretation and measuring a patient outcome. No limit was set on time or language. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project Risk of Bias assessment tool and the CASP checklist for qualitative studies. Results were synthesized using REDCap and presented in tables. Results: We identified 29 reports represented by five types of studies. Types of interpreter intervention examined were professional, ad hoc, relational, any and no interpreter. Outcomes measured were Discussion: In-person Professional interpreter is the interpreter type resulting in greatest satisfaction and best communication outcome for the patients. This review is limited by most data originating from one country, interpretation from mainly Spanish to English and in one cultural setting. Funding: No funding was provided for this review.

Indexed as

CommunicationInterpreter servicesLanguage barrierLanguage interpretationMedical settingPatient outcomes

Identifiers

PMID36816444
PMCPMC9932446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.