ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2024
Exploring the Telephone Call Experience of Patients with Non-English Language Preference in Primary Care vs. Specialty.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. 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.
- Language preference or navigation structure? Interpreting follow-up disparities after emergency department visits for acute renal colic.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Influence of primary language on follow-up after emergency department visits for acute renal colic: evidence from an ethnically diverse urban cohort.World journal of urology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundLatine people, comprising 18.5% of the US population, constitute the largest ethnic minority group, with nearly one-third self-identifying as having non-English language preference (NELP). Despite the importance of the telephone in health care access, there is limited understanding of how NELP patients navigate telephone calls with primary and specialty care clinics.
objectiveThis qualitative study aims to capture how Spanish speakers with NELP characterize their telephone call experiences with primary and specialty care clinics.
designSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 Spanish-speaking participants from primary care clinics with a sizeable proportion of patients who prefer to communicate in a language other than English at an urban academic medical center in Boston, MA.
participantsParticipants were selected from primary care clinics that were well-equipped to serve Spanish-speaking patients. A total of 24 Spanish-speaking patients with NELP, mainly women (83%), with a mean age of 55.8 years, participated. They represented diverse countries of origin, with an average length of time in the USA of 21.7 years. APPROACH: Interview questions prompted participants to describe their telephone call experiences with front desk staff, with attention to interpreter availability, ancillary assistance, health outcomes stemming from a lack of language services, and emotional consequences of language discordance on calls. KEY
resultsPatients perceived primary care clinics as providing familiarity and language concordance during telephone interactions, contrasting with specialty care clinics, seen as sources of monolingual English communication. Participants utilized various strategies, such as requesting interpreters, using concise English phrases, or seeking assistance from acquaintances, relatives, or primary care clinic staff, to mitigate language barriers.
conclusionsThe findings underscore significant challenges faced by Spanish-speaking patients with NELP in ambulatory specialty care telephone calls. The study emphasizes the importance of creating inclusive multilingual telephone environments, standardizing interpreter access, and reflecting the diversity of the communities served.
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.