ArticleBJGP open2025
The patient-safety implications of AI-based communication with migrants in general practice: a scoping review.
Article in BJGP open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccess to interpreters for refugee and migrant patients that do not share the same language and culture as their GPs is considered a critical healthcare adaptation. However, interpreters are not routinely available in many healthcare settings and artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used as a pragmatic alternative. The patient-safety implications of relying on AI for this purpose are under-researched.
aimTo identify and map available evidence on AI-facilitated synchronous communication between refugee or migrant patients and their healthcare provider, focusing on the patient-safety implications. DESIGN &
settingA six-stage scoping review was undertaken, examining the international literature.
methodA literature search of five relevant electronic databases and grey literature from July 2017 to October 2024 was conducted. Data were extracted and synthesised accordingly.
resultsA total of 220 articles spanning various healthcare contexts were screened, with five articles meeting inclusion criteria. These studies report use of the AI-tool Google Translate to address language barriers across diverse clinical settings, despite Google Translate not being designed to support synchronous communication or communication in medical contexts. Negative experiences of using these tools were reported more than positive experiences. Clinicians discussed specific concerns about reliability of Google Translate for medical terms, patient consent, and complex consultations.
conclusionThere is no evidence that using Google Translate to synchronously communicate medical information to refugees and migrants has been tested for patient safety, highlighting potential for translation inaccuracies impacting patient safety. In clinical settings, where the high stakes of failure are ever-present, such inaccuracies can result in misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, and serious harm.
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.