ArticleBMJ open2024
Usability of technological tools to overcome language barriers in health care: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Validation status of cognitive digital assessments by the FDA BEST framework and context of use in preclinical AD studies: A systematic review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Pooled it
- Usability of technological tools to overcome language barriers in healthcare- a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Pooled it
- Google Translate Voice App vs. Qualified Interpreters: An Exploratory Study of Clinical Accuracy in Real-World Speech/Voice Encounters.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Building trust and relationship across language barriers: a qualitative study of interpreter-mediated psychotherapy with therapists, interpreters and patients.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Large language models in nephrology: applications and challenges in chronic kidney disease management.Renal failure · 2025Review
- Advancing health equity: evaluating AI translations of kidney donor information for Spanish speakers.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Uncovering multi-level mental healthcare barriers for migrants: a qualitative analysis across China, Germany, Netherlands, Romania, and South Africa.BMC public 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn many healthcare contexts globally, where the languages of care providers and patients do not match, miscommunication or non-communication can lead to inaccurate diagnoses and subpar treatment outcomes. In order to bridge these language barriers, a range of informal practices are used, such as family members or staff acting as interpreters, 'receptive multilingualism' or machine translation. The development and use of technological tools are increasing, but factors such as translation quality for complex health-related texts vary widely between languages. The objective of this scoping review is to (1) identify and describe the technological tools used in direct patient-provider communication to overcome a language barrier in a healthcare setting, (2) identify how the usability of these tools was evaluated and (3) assess the usability of the technological tools. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A search strategy using variations of the keywords 'technological tools', 'language barrier' and 'healthcare' will be applied in the following databases and research platforms: PubMed, PsycArticle, Scopus, EBSCOhost, ProQuest and Web of Science. All literature where individuals use a technological tool to overcome a language barrier in a healthcare context will be included and exported into the screening assistant software Rayyan. The search will be limited to articles written in German or English. Two independent reviewers will screen the articles, and all relevant extracted data will be presented in a descriptive summary. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethical approval, as the study's methodology consists of collecting data from publicly available sources. The findings will be disseminated through publication in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and presentations at scientific conferences. The scoping review results will also guide future research in a multinational project investigating multilingualism in providing (mental) healthcare to migrants.
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.