ArticleHealth equity2025
Impact of Strict Isolation Precautions on Families with a Language Other than English.
Article in Health equity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Children with a language for care other than English (LOE) are at risk for inequitable care. We examined the association of isolation precautions in the care of hospitalized children with LOE through the frequency of professional interpreter use and timing of in-person consultation. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of children in a strict isolation unit (SIU) between 2/2020 and 12/2021. Negative binomial regression was used to assess both differences in interpretation rates between SIU and non-SIU, and within 72-h/in-person consultation rates within the SIU between English-speaking and LOE encounters. Results: We identified 487 encounters in the SIU; 126 (26%) involved patients with LOE. The median interpretations per day were 4.5 (Interquartile Range [IQR]: 2.0-6.7). Among patients with LOE, there was an observed difference in median interpretations per day in the SIU (3.9, IQR: 1.7-6.4) versus encounters in non-SIU acute care units (5.0, IQR: 1.2-8.2). However, this difference was not statistically significant (Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR]: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-1.13). Sub-specialty consultations were requested for 410 (84%) encounters within the SIU; 282 (69%) were completed in person within 72 h. A small difference between the percentage of completed consultations for encounters with LOE ( Conclusion: Despite the increased barriers of strict isolation, we exceeded institutional standards for interpretations per day and had similar rates of interpretation for encounters with LOE admitted to medical units regardless of isolation status.
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.