ArticleFamily practice2026
Virtual and in-person interpretation: a qualitative study from the perspective of professional medical interpreters.
Article in Family practice, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeProfessional medical interpreters aim to provide high-quality interpretation for non-English language preference (NELP) patients; however, the impact of various interpreter modalities (virtual versus in-person) is unclear. This project explored the impact of interpreter modality on the in-person care experience through focus groups with medical interpreters to identify strengths, limitations, and clinical situations where in-person or virtual interpretation modalities are most beneficial.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using focus groups with professional medical interpreters. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized. Transcripts were then coded and analyzed using thematic analysis.
resultsWe conducted five focus groups with 24 professional medical interpreters and identified four themes: relationship development; understanding and accuracy; accessibility, flexibility, and flow; and care quality. Interpreters found many functions are best served through in-person interpreters. However, there are certain circumstances in which virtual interpreters can be effectively utilized to increase access and allow flexibility.
conclusionsInterpreters primarily promote in-person interpreters for increased understanding, equity, and human connection to best serve patients. They provided salient examples and a deep understanding to inform the utility of different modalities in various clinical situations. There are opportunities for health systems, clinicians, and families to improve access to interpretation and ensure interpreters can use their full skill set to improve patient care and equity.
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.