ArticleThe European journal of general practice2026
Technological translation tools for official language minorities in primary and emergency care: A rapid scoping review and environmental scan.
Article in The European journal of general 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLanguage barriers cause miscommunication in healthcare, thereby threatening care quality and patient safety, including for official language minorities. Various technological solutions exist to minimise these barriers.
aimTo map and summarise technological translation tools used in patient-provider communication in primary and/or emergency care.
methodA rapid scoping review using adapted Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology combined with an environmental scan. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and grey literature
resultsTwenty sources were included. Five categories were identified: video interpreter, telephone interpreter, translation application (AI), fixed-phrase healthcare translation application, and portable general translation device. Three domains of characteristics emerged: patient-provider interaction, operational feasibility, and ethical considerations. Video interpreter support provided high-quality interpretation and non-verbal communication however faced scheduling and technical challenges. Telephone interpreter support provided broad language coverage but lacked visual cues. AI-based applications enabled rapid multilingual support but raised concerns about accuracy. Fixed-phrase applications facilitated predefined healthcare communication, whereas portable devices offered flexible support but raised concerns about contextual appropriateness.
conclusionTechnological translation tools vary in interaction quality, feasibility and ethical considerations. Evidence remains limited and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for robust evaluation of effectiveness, safety, and implementation in routine practice.
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.