ArticleBMC primary care2024
Uptake and experience of professional interpreting services in primary care in a South Asian population: a national cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC primary care, 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.
- Patient and clinician experiences of language barriers in Qatar's multilingual public mental health care: a qualitative study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Exploring health inequalities by language proficiency; A routine health records study set in England.PloS one · 2026Article
- Experiences of families using an early example of a neighbourhood multidisciplinary care team for children and young people in Birmingham, UK: a qualitative exploration of acceptability.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Delivery of interpreting services in UK primary care by population needs: a multisite case study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- South Asian patient experiences of professional interpreting service provision in general practice in England: a qualitative interview study.International journal for equity in health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterpreting services bridge language barriers that may prevent patients and clinicians from understanding each other, impacting quality of care and health outcomes. Despite this, there is limited up-to-date evidence regarding the barriers to and facilitators of uptake in primary care. The aim of this study was to ascertain current national uptake and experience of interpreting services in primary care (general practice) by South Asian communities in England.
methodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional survey in 2023 with people with limited or no English language proficiency (n = 609). Multilingual researchers interviewed people from Bangladeshi (n = 213), Indian (n = 200), and Pakistani (n = 196) backgrounds from four regions in England (Greater London, Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North West).
resultsSixty-three percent of participants reported using professional interpreting services in primary care. The most common modality was face-to-face interpreting (55%), followed by telephone (17%) and video (8%). Multivariable analysis identified several correlates of lower uptake: participants from Indian backgrounds, those living in the Midlands, and those whose family member/friend interpreted for them within the past year were less likely to have used a professional interpreter provided by their general/family practice. Participants who had visited primary care within the last 12 months, had requested an interpreter but were told they could not have one, were informed about professional interpreting services, and were given choice in their language support were more likely to have used a professional interpreter.
conclusionsOur approach provides novel data on professional interpreting service use and evidence about the factors that may play a role in patient uptake and experience.
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.