ArticleBMJ open2023
Experiences with remote interpreting tools in primary care settings: a qualitative evaluation of the implementation and usage of remote interpreting tools during a feasibility trial in Germany.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technological translation tools for official language minorities in primary and emergency care: A rapid scoping review and environmental scan.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Communication practices with patients using a language other than French: a cross-sectional survey in a university hospital in France.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Public Insurance and Language Preferences Are Associated With a Longer Time to Surgery for Distal Radius Fractures.The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the usage and implementation of video remote (VR) interpreting and telephone remote (TR) interpreting in primary healthcare settings.
designThis publication forms part of a larger three-pronged study in which we compared both remote interpreting modalities to each other and to a control group. This paper conveys the findings of the qualitative evaluation of the implementation and usage of both remote interpreting solutions. The quantitative evaluation of the 6-month intervention period (September 2018-February 2019) has been reported previously. After this period, we conducted focus groups with the healthcare professionals involved. The focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the structured qualitative content analysis.
settingWe provided either VR or TR tools to 10 different primary healthcare practices (general medicine, gynaecology and paediatrics) in the city of Hamburg, Germany.
participantsThree physicians and two physician's assistants took part in the TR focus group. The VR focus group consisted of four physicians.
resultsThe main topics identified were the importance of communication for diagnostic and therapeutic processes, previous solutions to language barriers, as well as advantages and disadvantages of the two remote interpreting solutions. Advantages included the possibility to adequately communicate with language discordant patients and the high quality of the interpreting. Disadvantages included the habituation time required for new technology as well as time constraints.
conclusionOur evaluation found that these solutions were highly appreciated, if not considered indispensable, for the delivery of appropriate medical care to language-discordant patients. Differences between the two modalities were named and concrete suggestions for improvement were made. Policy-makers should consider providing VR or TR as an adequate and safe interpreting service alternative when professional in-person interpreters are not available or too expensive.
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.