SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2025
Nurses' Experiences of Working With Healthcare Interpreters When Caring for Patients With Limited Proficiency in the Primary Language: A Qualitative Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interpreter use in Nordic paediatric oncology care - a multicentre cross-sectional study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with limited proficiency in the primary language who do not receive a healthcare interpreter have poorer health outcomes. Clinician preference is an important factor in determining whether a healthcare interpreter will be used; yet little is known about their experiences and preferences for working with healthcare interpreters. AIMS AND
objectivesTo review and synthesise the evidence examining nurses' experiences of working with healthcare interpreters when caring for patients with limited proficiency in the primary language.
methodsThis review follows the reporting items contained within the ENTREQ statement. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken from inception to August 2024 in the databases CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsychInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Included studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for qualitative studies. Thematic synthesis was undertaken on studies meeting the inclusion criteria, including studies undertaken in acute settings. Articles were limited to English-language papers and peer-reviewed.
findingsEighteen studies representing the experiences of 416 nurses from eight countries were included in the review. Four themes were identified: (1) working with Interpreters, (2) tensions and challenges, (3) making connections, and (4) workarounds. DISCUSSION: Nurses' experiences of working with healthcare interpreters were overwhelmingly positive; however, concerns about interpretation accuracy, unreliable technology, additional time required when working with a healthcare interpreter, and being sidelined were evident. Nurses commonly resorted to using bilingual nurse colleagues and family members when healthcare interpreters were unavailable.
conclusionThis review highlights the need for nurses to be allocated additional time in their patient loads when caring for patients with limited proficiency in the primary language. Healthcare policy that accommodates the use of bilingual healthcare professionals as well as the need for nurses to receive formal training on working collaboratively with healthcare interpreters is needed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Not applicable due to systematic review.
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.