口译服务和对医疗保健的影响-不同类型的口译对患者结果的影响的系统审查

IF 3.9 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Migration and Health Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jmh.2023.100162

Morten Heath , Anne Mette Fløe Hvass , Christian Morberg Wejse

{"title":"口译服务和对医疗保健的影响-不同类型的口译对患者结果的影响的系统审查","authors":"Morten Heath , Anne Mette Fløe Hvass , Christian Morberg Wejse","doi":"10.1016/j.jmh.2023.100162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Utilization of interpreters to facilitate communication between health care providers and non-native speaking patients is essential to provide the best possible quality of care. Yet use and policy on the subject vary widely, as does knowledge on the effect of different types of interpreters. This paper systematically reviews the literature on use of interpreters in the medical setting to evaluate their effects on the quality of care.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>We conducted a literature search of PubMed and Embase, supplemented with references from relevant previous literature. We included any report in a medical setting comparing one type of interpretation to any other, including no interpretation and measuring a patient outcome. No limit was set on time or language. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project Risk of Bias assessment tool and the CASP checklist for qualitative studies. Results were synthesized using REDCap and presented in tables.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 29 reports represented by five types of studies. Types of interpreter intervention examined were professional, ad hoc, relational, any and no interpreter. Outcomes measured were <em>satisfaction, communication, utilization</em> and <em>clinical outcomes</em>. Results were indicative of in-person professional interpreter resulting in highest <em>satisfaction</em> and <em>communication</em>, reaffirming that any interpreter is better than none and relational interpreters can be a valuable interpreter resource for patients in the private practice setting. To be able to further differentiate on outcome for interventions of ad-hoc or relational interpreters, further data is needed.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>In-person Professional interpreter is the interpreter type resulting in greatest satisfaction and best communication outcome for the patients. This review is limited by most data originating from one country, interpretation from mainly Spanish to English and in one cultural setting.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p>No funding was provided for this review.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34448,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Migration and Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/26/32/main.PMC9932446.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpreter services and effect on healthcare - a systematic review of the impact of different types of interpreters on patient outcome\",\"authors\":\"Morten Heath , Anne Mette Fløe Hvass , Christian Morberg Wejse\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmh.2023.100162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Utilization of interpreters to facilitate communication between health care providers and non-native speaking patients is essential to provide the best possible quality of care. Yet use and policy on the subject vary widely, as does knowledge on the effect of different types of interpreters. This paper systematically reviews the literature on use of interpreters in the medical setting to evaluate their effects on the quality of care.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>We conducted a literature search of PubMed and Embase, supplemented with references from relevant previous literature. We included any report in a medical setting comparing one type of interpretation to any other, including no interpretation and measuring a patient outcome. No limit was set on time or language. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project Risk of Bias assessment tool and the CASP checklist for qualitative studies. Results were synthesized using REDCap and presented in tables.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 29 reports represented by five types of studies. Types of interpreter intervention examined were professional, ad hoc, relational, any and no interpreter. Outcomes measured were <em>satisfaction, communication, utilization</em> and <em>clinical outcomes</em>. Results were indicative of in-person professional interpreter resulting in highest <em>satisfaction</em> and <em>communication</em>, reaffirming that any interpreter is better than none and relational interpreters can be a valuable interpreter resource for patients in the private practice setting. To be able to further differentiate on outcome for interventions of ad-hoc or relational interpreters, further data is needed.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>In-person Professional interpreter is the interpreter type resulting in greatest satisfaction and best communication outcome for the patients. This review is limited by most data originating from one country, interpretation from mainly Spanish to English and in one cultural setting.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p>No funding was provided for this review.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34448,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Migration and Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/26/32/main.PMC9932446.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Migration and Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666623523000120\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Migration and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666623523000120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

摘要

背景利用口译员来促进医疗服务提供者和非母语患者之间的沟通对于提供尽可能高质量的医疗服务至关重要。然而，关于这一主题的使用和政策差异很大，就像对不同类型口译员的影响的了解一样。本文系统地回顾了在医疗环境中使用口译员的文献，以评估其对护理质量的影响。材料与方法我们在PubMed和Embase进行文献检索，并辅以相关文献的参考文献。我们纳入了在医疗环境中比较一种解释与任何其他解释的任何报告，包括不解释和测量患者结果。没有时间和语言上的限制。使用证据项目偏倚风险评估工具和定性研究的CASP检查表评估偏倚风险。使用REDCap对结果进行综合，并以表格形式呈现。结果纳入5类研究共29篇报道。调查的口译干预类型有专业口译、临时口译、关系型口译、有口译和无口译。测量的结果包括满意度、沟通、利用和临床结果。结果表明，面对面的专业口译产生了最高的满意度和沟通，重申有口译员总比没有好，关系口译员可以成为私人执业环境中患者宝贵的口译资源。为了能够进一步区分特设或关系口译干预的结果，需要进一步的数据。专业口译员是一种译员类型，可以为患者带来最大的满意度和最佳的沟通结果。本综述受限于大多数来自一个国家的数据，主要从西班牙语翻译为英语，并且在一个文化环境中。本综述未获资助。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Interpreter services and effect on healthcare - a systematic review of the impact of different types of interpreters on patient outcome

Background

Utilization of interpreters to facilitate communication between health care providers and non-native speaking patients is essential to provide the best possible quality of care. Yet use and policy on the subject vary widely, as does knowledge on the effect of different types of interpreters. This paper systematically reviews the literature on use of interpreters in the medical setting to evaluate their effects on the quality of care.

Material and methods

We conducted a literature search of PubMed and Embase, supplemented with references from relevant previous literature. We included any report in a medical setting comparing one type of interpretation to any other, including no interpretation and measuring a patient outcome. No limit was set on time or language. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project Risk of Bias assessment tool and the CASP checklist for qualitative studies. Results were synthesized using REDCap and presented in tables.

Results

We identified 29 reports represented by five types of studies. Types of interpreter intervention examined were professional, ad hoc, relational, any and no interpreter. Outcomes measured were satisfaction, communication, utilization and clinical outcomes. Results were indicative of in-person professional interpreter resulting in highest satisfaction and communication, reaffirming that any interpreter is better than none and relational interpreters can be a valuable interpreter resource for patients in the private practice setting. To be able to further differentiate on outcome for interventions of ad-hoc or relational interpreters, further data is needed.

Discussion

In-person Professional interpreter is the interpreter type resulting in greatest satisfaction and best communication outcome for the patients. This review is limited by most data originating from one country, interpretation from mainly Spanish to English and in one cultural setting.