ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2024
Provision of interpreting support for cross-cultural communication in UK maternity services: A Freedom of Information request.
Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the extent and nature of research examining health literacy and ethnic inequalities in maternity care: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Pre-pregnancy primary care and accident and emergency interactions among interpreter-users versus non-interpreter-users in England: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Safety and personalised care in maternity services of England for women whose preferred language is not English: a critical race theory analysis of interpreter experiences.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Learning from the Implementation of Disability-Inclusive Maternity Care: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Intersectional dynamics and care disparities in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: a socio-technical systems perspective.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Language, communication and understanding of information are central to safe, ethical and efficient maternity care. The National Health Service (NHS) commissioning board, NHS England, describes how healthcare providers should obtain language support through professionally trained interpreters. Providers of interpreters are commissioned to deliver remote/face to face interpretation across the NHS. Services can be booked in advance or calls can be made in real time. However, women report infrequent use of professionally trained interpreters during their maternity care, often relying on friends and family as interpreters which can compromise confidentiality, disclosure and accuracy. Methods: To determine the demand for, and provision of, professionally trained interpreters in practice, we sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to 119 NHS Trusts delivering maternity services in England in November 2022. For the financial years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022, we asked how many women in the maternity service were identified as needing an interpreter, the number and mode of interpreter sessions, and the annual spend on interpreting services. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred maternity Trusts responded by 21st April 2023 (response rate 100/119-84 %). Of these, 56 (56 %) recorded a woman's need for an interpreter. Nineteen Trusts relied on documentation in paper notes and 37 Trusts recorded the information on a digital system. From the 37 Trusts where this information could be digitally retrieved, women requiring interpreter support reflected between 1 and 25 % of the annual birth rate of the Trust (average 9 %) and received an average of three interpreter sessions across their pregnancy, birth and postnatal journey. Telephone was the dominant mode used for interpreting sessions, though 11 Trusts favoured face to face interpreting. Financial spend on interpreting services varied across Trusts; some funded their own in-house interpreting services, or worked with local community groups in addition to their contracted interpreting provider. Conclusion: Information obtained from this FOI request suggests that documentation of a woman's interpreting need is not complete or consistent across NHS maternity services. As a result, it is not clear how many women require an interpreter, the mode of provision or how frequently it is provided, and the cost involved. However, the limited information available suggests a failure to provide interpreter support to women at each scheduled care encounter. This raises questions about, the risk of women not understanding the care being offered, and the increased risk of uninformed, unconsented care as women traverse pregnancy and birth. Tweetable: There appears to be failure to provide interpreter support to women at each scheduled maternity care encounter increasing the risk of uninformed, unconsented care.
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.