ArticlePEC innovation2023
Development and pilot testing a communication simulation training for interpreters to improve pain communication between primary care providers and patients with limited English proficiency.
Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the impact of a pain assessment information visualization tool on provider-patient pain discussion with limited English proficiency Hmong patients.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
- Improving pain communication between limited English-speaking Hmong patients, medical interpreters, and health care providers in primary care: A pilot study.Research in nursing & health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Health disparities in patients with limited English proficiency are worsened due to scarcity of interpreter-focused communication interventions and trainings. Objectives: To develop a high-fidelity simulation training for interpreters to use a novel pain communication tool, i.e., Pain Assessment Information Visualization (InfoViz) Tool, and evaluate interpreters' implementation fidelity during a pilot study. Methods: This research methodology study involved training interpreters through high-fidelity simulations and assessing the implementation fidelity of 20 patient-provider visits in primary care clinics. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the assessment and fidelity. Debriefing interviews were conducted after the training and at the study completion. These were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Four interpreters completed training, requesting an average of 2.5 practice simulation studies prior to assessment (M = 54 min, score: M = 95%). Interviews revealed two themes: positive experiences and suggestions for improvement. Interpreters averaged 83% for implementation fidelity for the 20 visits. Post-study interviews revealed positive experiences and the need for refresher training. Conclusion: The communication simulation training for interpreters is feasible, acceptable, and can ensure accurate use of the Pain InfoViz Tool during provider-patient communication. Innovation: We applied a InfoViz Tool in pain simulations and extended high-fidelity training to medical interpreting.
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.