ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2026
Healthcare providers' use and acceptance of translation technologies in multilingual healthcare settings: a cross-sectional study.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLanguage barriers remain a major challenge to equitable healthcare delivery. While qualified interpreters are considered the preferred standard, their availability is often limited. Translation technologies are therefore increasingly used in practice. However, quantitative evidence on how healthcare providers use these tools, how they evaluate them, and which factors are associated with their acceptance remains limited.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted among healthcare and psychosocial service providers across a range of clinical settings. Inferential analyses were restricted to the German sample (n = 258), with Romanian data (n = 185) used for exploratory descriptive comparison. The survey assessed experiences with language barriers, communication strategies, and acceptance of translation technologies based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Descriptive analyses characterised use patterns, and multivariable ordinary least squares regression with HC3-robust inference examined factors associated with behavioural intention to use translation technologies.
resultsA total of 443 healthcare providers were included. Translation technologies were used by 65.0% of providers in the previous three months, often in the absence of formal organisational support, training, or guidelines. Use varied descriptively across country samples and professional groups, with higher use observed in the German sample and among medical-technical and nursing staff. Acceptance was moderately positive, with perceived usefulness showing the strongest controlled association with behavioural intention to use translation technologies (β = 0.44, p < 0.001). Organisational factors and contextual concerns were not independently associated with behavioural intention. Providers reported concerns regarding accuracy and data privacy, and more cautious use in contexts requiring nuanced, relational communication.
conclusionsTranslation technologies appear to function as pragmatic, ad hoc solutions to communication challenges in multilingual healthcare. While these tools may facilitate basic communication, their limitations in complex interactions and the absence of governance frameworks raise important considerations for their safe and equitable implementation. Rather than replacing professional interpreting services, translation technologies may be best understood as complementary resources within a broader communication strategy. Their contribution to equitable care will depend on how they are implemented to support meaningful communication and address the needs of service users facing language barriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919266What 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.