Language access research for community health: provider perspectives on language access techniques and the role of communication technology.

Q2 Social Sciences
Carmen Gonzalez, Janessa M Graves, Joana Ramos, Monica S Vavilala, Megan Moore
{"title":"Language access research for community health: provider perspectives on language access techniques and the role of communication technology.","authors":"Carmen Gonzalez, Janessa M Graves, Joana Ramos, Monica S Vavilala, Megan Moore","doi":"10.1080/17538068.2023.2237351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the United States, 66 million people speak a language other than English at home. Patients with diverse language needs often face significant health disparities. Information and communication technologies have expanded the realm of modalities for patient-provider communication. However, the extent to which digital language access tools are utilized by healthcare providers is unknown. This research examines provider perspectives on language assistance techniques and the role of communication technology when serving patients with non-English language preference (NELP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between April and July 2019, an online survey was administered to 3,033 healthcare providers (doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and dentists) in Washington State. Providers reported on their language access practices and perspectives on communication technology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most providers reported using <i>ad hoc</i> language access techniques when engaging patients with NELP, such as a patient's family member or friend (75.8%), a patient's child specifically (61.9%), or a bilingual staff member (64.3%). Professional techniques, such as in-person interpretation (53.5%), phone interpretation (57%), and video remote interpretation (38.8%), were used less often. Dissatisfaction with the language access processes of healthcare providers' place of work was associated with a higher reliance on a patient's family or friend for language interpretation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings suggest that providers might be under-utilizing professional and digital interpreter services while relying on <i>ad hoc</i> techniques. Such practices reveal systemic constraints on language access that might make it difficult for providers to access timely and reliable options for professional language interpretation, despite federal regulations that mandate such services for patients with NELP.</p>","PeriodicalId":38052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":"7-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2023.2237351","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the United States, 66 million people speak a language other than English at home. Patients with diverse language needs often face significant health disparities. Information and communication technologies have expanded the realm of modalities for patient-provider communication. However, the extent to which digital language access tools are utilized by healthcare providers is unknown. This research examines provider perspectives on language assistance techniques and the role of communication technology when serving patients with non-English language preference (NELP).

Methods: Between April and July 2019, an online survey was administered to 3,033 healthcare providers (doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and dentists) in Washington State. Providers reported on their language access practices and perspectives on communication technology.

Results: Most providers reported using ad hoc language access techniques when engaging patients with NELP, such as a patient's family member or friend (75.8%), a patient's child specifically (61.9%), or a bilingual staff member (64.3%). Professional techniques, such as in-person interpretation (53.5%), phone interpretation (57%), and video remote interpretation (38.8%), were used less often. Dissatisfaction with the language access processes of healthcare providers' place of work was associated with a higher reliance on a patient's family or friend for language interpretation.

Conclusions: Findings suggest that providers might be under-utilizing professional and digital interpreter services while relying on ad hoc techniques. Such practices reveal systemic constraints on language access that might make it difficult for providers to access timely and reliable options for professional language interpretation, despite federal regulations that mandate such services for patients with NELP.

社区卫生语言使用研究:提供者对语言使用技术和通信技术作用的看法。
背景:在美国,有 6600 万人在家中使用英语以外的语言。有不同语言需求的患者往往面临严重的健康差异。信息和通信技术拓展了患者与医疗服务提供者之间的交流方式。然而,医疗服务提供者对数字语言访问工具的利用程度尚不清楚。本研究探讨了医疗服务提供者在为非英语语言偏好(NELP)患者提供服务时对语言辅助技术和通信技术作用的看法:在 2019 年 4 月至 7 月期间,对华盛顿州的 3033 名医疗服务提供者(医生、执业护士、药剂师和牙医)进行了在线调查。医疗服务提供者报告了他们的语言使用实践和对通信技术的看法:大多数医疗服务提供者表示,在与非母语人士患者接触时,他们会使用特别的语言访问技术,如患者的家人或朋友(75.8%)、患者的子女(61.9%)或双语工作人员(64.3%)。较少使用专业技术,如当面口译(53.5%)、电话口译(57%)和视频远程口译(38.8%)。对医疗服务提供者工作场所的语言使用流程不满意与更多地依赖患者的家人或朋友提供语言翻译有关:研究结果表明,医疗服务提供者可能没有充分利用专业和数字口译服务,而是依赖于临时技术。这种做法揭示了在语言使用方面存在的系统性限制,尽管联邦法规规定必须为非营利性非传染性疾病患者提供专业语言口译服务,但这可能使医疗服务提供者难以获得及时、可靠的专业语言口译选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Communication in Healthcare
Journal of Communication in Healthcare Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信