Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40241154›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025

South Asian patient experiences of professional interpreting service provision in general practice in England: a qualitative interview study.

Graham Hieke, Georgia B Black, Judith Yargawa, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Paramjit Gill, Lily Islam, Emily D Williams, Sabine Braun, Katriina L Whitaker

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Graham HiekeSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Georgia B BlackWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Judith YargawaWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Cecilia Vindrola-PadrosDepartment of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK.
Paramjit GillWarwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Lily IslamPatient and Public Involvement, London, UK.
Emily D WilliamsDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Sabine BraunCentre for Translation Studies, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Katriina L WhitakerSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. k.whitaker@surrey.ac.uk.

Funding

Barts Charity G-001520National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR134866National Institute for Health and Care Research, Central London Patient Safety Research Collaboration NIHR204297THIS Institute, University of Cambridge RG88620/PD-2019-02-004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunication difficulties due to unmet language needs are a driver of inequality in healthcare access. The provision of professional interpreting services should mitigate these, and their use is associated with improved patient outcomes. However, interpreting uptake in England is suboptimal and there has been limited research focused on understanding patient experiences and the potential impact on uptake. This multilingual study explored patient perspectives of access to and experience of language support in general practice (primary care) in England, including the use of professional interpreting services and informal language support (i.e. family/friends).

methodThis is a qualitative study based on face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 30 participants from South Asian backgrounds (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi), with no/limited proficiency, living in England. Interviews were analysed with inductive thematic analysis. Patient advisors were involved in all aspects of the research and interpretation of the findings was supported by public engagement focus groups.

resultsThree main themes described participants challenges related to uptake of professional interpreting services including (1) the burden of articulating need, (2) prioritisation of different types of language support (professional/informal), and (3) perceptions of professional interpreting services. Participants described an onus on them to arrange interpreting themselves, whilst regular use of informal language support could inhibit offers of professional language support. Online/digital booking systems perpetuated these challenges. Patient illness appraisal impacted decision making, with informal language support prioritised for less serious matters. Patients highlighted the importance of having confidence in these services, and face-to-face interpreting was preferred to remote interpreting.

conclusionsNo/low English proficiency patients need additional support when booking interpreted-assisted appointments. Increasing patient awareness of and confidence in professional language support is vital to uptake of services. Emphasising the benefits of professional support over informal options is important, with links to patient safety. We provide recommendations for general practice in how to support the uptake of professional interpreting services.

Indexed as

Communication BarriersGeneral PracticeSouth Asian PeopleAdultAgedEnglandFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchGeneral practiceHealth inequalitiesInterpretingLanguage barriersQualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID40241154
PMCPMC12004599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.