Comparing In-Person, Video, and Telephonic Medical Interpretation
Using trained interpreters to provide medical interpretation services is superior to services provided on an ad hoc basis, but little is known about the effectiveness of providing their services remotely, especially using video.
To compare remote medical interpretation services by trained interpreters via telephone and videoconference to those provided in-person.
Quasi-randomized control study.
Two hundred and forty-one Spanish speaking patient volunteers, twenty-four health providers, and seven interpreters.
Patients, providers and interpreters each independently completed scales evaluating the quality of clinical encounters and, optionally, made free text comments. Interviews were conducted with 23 of the providers, the seven interpreters, and a subset of 30 patients. Time data were collected.
Encounters with in-person interpretation were rated significantly higher by providers and interpreters, while patients rated all methods the same. There were no significant differences in provider and interpreter ratings of remote methods. Provider and interpreter comments on scales and interview data support the higher in-person ratings, but they also showed a distinct preference for video over the phone. Phone interviews were significantly shorter than in-person.
Patients rated interpretation services highly no matter how they were provided but experienced only the method employed at the time of the encounter. Providers and interpreters were exposed to all three methods, were more critical of remote methods, and preferred videoconferencing to the telephone as a remote method. The significantly shorter phone interviews raise questions about the prospects of miscommunication in telephonic interpretation, given the absence of a visual channel, but other factors might have affected time results. Since the patient population studied was Hispanic and predominantly female care must be taken in generalizing these results to other populations.
Key wordstelephonic in-person video medical interpretation
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health intramural research program and by NIH contracts, HHSN276200700281P and HHSN276200700292P.
Conflicts of Interest
Mr. Roberson and Dr. Maisiak currently work at for-profit companies. None of the authors have any relationships that affected the outcome of this research. Mr. Roberson was Director of Interpretation Services at the Medical University of South Carolina when he participated in the study. Dr. Maisiak provided statistical consultation.
- 1.Shin H, Bruno R. Language use and English-speaking ability: 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce Census 2000 Brief, October 2003. Available from: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf Accessed December 2009.
- 2.Office of Minority Health. National standards for culturally and linguistically appropriate services in health care: Final Report. Washington: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; 2001 [cited 2001 Mar]. Available from: http://www.omhrc.gov/assets/pdf/checked/finalreport.pdf Accessed December 2009.
- 8.Cunningham H, Cushman L, Akuete-Penn C, Meyer D. Satisfaction with telephonic interpreters in pediatric care. J Nat Med Assoc. 2008;100(4):429–34.Google Scholar
- 14.Saint-Louis L, Friedman E, Chiasson E, Quessa A, Novaes F. Testing new technologies in medical interpreting. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cambridge Health Alliance; 2003.Google Scholar
- 15.Paras M, Leyva O, Berthold T, Otake R. Videoconferencing medical interpretation: the results of clinical trials. Oakland, California: Health Access Foundation; 2002.Google Scholar
- 19.Loblaw A, Bezjak A, Bunston T. Development and testing of a visit specific patient satisfaction questionnaire: The Princes Margaret Hospital Satisfaction with Doctor Questionnaire. J Clin Onc. 1999;1931–8.Google Scholar