ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Evaluating professional interpreting services for patients with limited English proficiency in secondary care settings: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
backgroundPatients with limited English proficiency (LEP) face significant language barriers in healthcare, leading to poorer clinical outcomes. Professional medical interpreters are essential for equitable, high-quality care. While their use is widely recommended, there is limited understanding of the optimal objective outcome measures to best evaluate interpreter effectiveness in secondary and tertiary care settings.
methodsA scoping review was conducted which was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Four databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and CINAHL) were searched without date or language limits. We included comparative studies assessing professional medical interpreting services for adult patients with LEP in secondary or tertiary care using objective outcome measures related to clinical outcomes and/or healthcare utilisation. Data extraction included study design, interpreter modalities, outcome measures and adjustments for confounders.
resultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were cohort or cross-sectional studies, predominantly conducted in the USA. The most common outcome measures were clinical, including length of stay (n=8), readmission (n=5) and return emergency visits (n=3). Four studies assessed healthcare utilisation, including outpatient appointment adherence. Results varied: some studies showed reduced length of stay and readmissions with interpreter use, while others found longer stays or no effect. Disease-specific outcomes (e.g., stroke care quality and obstetric indicators) consistently favoured interpreter or health advocate use. Adjustment for confounders was inconsistent with few studies accounting for illness severity.
conclusionThis review highlights the heterogeneity and limitations in existing outcome measures for evaluating interpreter services. Length of stay and readmission are commonly used but prone to confounding. Disease-specific outcomes may offer greater sensitivity and relevance, especially when adjusted for clinical severity. Future research should prioritise the development of validated, standardised outcome sets that reflect both patient priorities and clinical relevance. These are essential for guiding service improvement and equitable healthcare delivery for LEP populations.
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.