ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Patient Time Spent With Professional Medical Interpreters and the Care Experiences of Patients With Limited English Proficiency.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining Audiometric Screening Outcomes in Non-Native English-Speaking Pediatric Patients.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2026Article
- Development of a language access index: a mixed methods analysis.Population health metrics · 2026Article
- Cultural diversity in early hearing detection and intervention: service provider perspectives.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2025Article
- Comparing remote and in-person interpretation experiences for clinicians and Spanish-speaking patients with limited English proficiency: a mixed methods study.BMJ open quality · 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
INTRODUCTION/
objectivesMore time spent with interpreters may support clinician-patient communication for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP), especially when interpreter support before and after clinical encounters is considered. We assessed whether more time spent with interpreters is associated with better patient-reported experiences of clinician-patient communication and interpreter support among patients with LEP.
methodsPatients with LEP (n = 338) were surveyed about their experiences with both the clinician and interpreter. Duration of interpreter support during the encounter (in min) and auxiliary time spent before and after encounters supporting patients (in min) were documented by interpreters. Multivariable linear regression models were estimated to assess the association of the time duration of interpreter support and patient experiences of (1) clinician-patient communication, and (2) interpreter support, controlling for patient and encounter characteristics.
resultsThe average encounter duration was 47.7 min (standard deviation, SD = 25.1), the average auxiliary time was 43.8 min (SD = 16.4), and the average total interpreter time was 91.1 min (SD = 28.6). LEP patients reported better experiences of interpreter support with a mean score of 97.4 out of 100 (SD = 6.99) compared to clinician-patient communication, with a mean score of 93.7 out of 100 (SD = 14.1). In adjusted analyses, total patient time spent with an interpreter was associated with better patient experiences of clinician-patient communication (β = 7.23,
conclusionsLonger duration of time spent with an interpreter was associated with better clinician-patient communication for patients with LEP when time spent with an interpreter before and after the clinician encounter is considered. Policymakers should consider reimbursing health care organizations for time interpreters spend providing patient navigation and other support beyond clinical encounters.
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.