ArticleBMC health services research2025
A qualitative study exploring the use of interpreters in a healthcare setting for children and young people seeking asylum and refugees.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildren and Young People Seeking Asylum and Refugees (CYPSAR) are increasing in number in the UK and globally. CYPSAR have many vulnerabilities which affect access to healthcare, including an almost universal requirement for language interpretation in healthcare settings. Current UK guidelines recommend in-person interpreters, but, in practice, remote interpreters are often used for pragmatic reasons.
aimsThis study aimed to explore the perspectives of healthcare providers in a specialist refugee health service regarding the use of remote interpreters when caring for CYPSAR.
methodsNine semi-structured individual interviews were performed with healthcare workers (July-August 2024). Participants were opportunistically recruited through professional networks. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically.
resultsThe key themes identified include both the positive and negative roles of interpreters in the development of patient-professional relationships, and recommendations for mitigators in this context. The significance of the interpreters role as both cultural and linguistic was discussed, as was the influence of patient age and trauma (patients' own, and vicarious trauma for interpreters). Despite a lack of formal training, participants felt competent in using remote interpreters and that remote interpretation is generally acceptable when providing care to CYPSAR, albeit with some caveats and dependent on context.
conclusionsThis work provides evidence for how best to address language barriers in healthcare provision to CYPSAR. We make recommendations to optimise effective interpretation in consultations with CYPSAR, including that provision is made for both remote and in-person interpretation.
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.