ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Effect of Virtual Versus In Person Interpreting on Diabetes Outcomes in Non-English Language Preference Patients: A Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Virtual and in-person interpretation: a qualitative study from the perspective of professional medical interpreters.Family practice · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this pilot study was to explore the impact of interpreter format (virtual vs in person) on clinical outcomes in patients with non-English language preference (NELP) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in a primary care setting. We hypothesized that NELP patients utilizing in person interpreters would have improved HbA1c values, better follow-up rate, and more complex care plans compared to patients utilizing virtual interpreters.
methodsWe completed a retrospective chart review of 137 NELP patients with T2DM who required a medical interpreter (February to June 2021). We calculated univariate and bivariate statistics to characterize the sample and assess the extent to which measures of continuity (follow-up visit rate and time to follow-up visit), quality (change in HbA1c), and complexity (medication intervention complexity) were associated with interpreter type.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in follow-up rate or average days to follow-up visit for NELP patients with in person as opposed to virtual interpreters. Patients with virtual interpreters demonstrated a non-statistically significant decrease in HbA1c compared to those with in person interpreters. Finally, there was no statistically significant association between interpreter format and intervention complexity.
conclusionsQuality medical interpretation contributes to optimal health outcomes in NELP patients with diabetes. Our study suggests that both in person and virtual interpreters can be effective in providing care for NELP patients, especially for chronic disease management in the context of a primary care relationship. It also highlights the importance of pursuing additional qualitative and mixed method studies to better understand the benefits of various interpreter formats across different visit types.
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.