视频口译是否会影响对听力损失人群的护理?

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
{"title":"视频口译是否会影响对听力损失人群的护理?","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The convergence of hearing impairment and language barriers presents unique communication challenges to patients and practicing otolaryngologists. Limited data exist comparing interpretation methods for patients with hearing loss. Patients with hearing loss rely on visual cues, lip-reading, written communication, and/or comprehensive interaction techniques, which may encounter limitations by remote services. Herein, we examine patient and otolaryngology provider satisfaction, cost, and encounter efficiency between virtual and in-person interpretation among adults who speak Mandarin and Cantonese.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study is a prospective, randomized controlled trial in patients with moderate-to-severe bilateral hearing loss, Limited English Proficiency, and a primary language of Mandarin or Cantonese. Fifty-two patients were randomized to either in-person or virtual interpretation conditions. Patient satisfaction was measured using an 8-item Likert scale assessing communication effectiveness, encounter efficiency, and overall quality. Otolaryngology provider satisfaction was measured using a 1-item Likert scale. Encounter time, cost, and communication difficulty were measured and compared using independent sample <em>t</em>-tests.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Patient and otolaryngology provider satisfaction scores were significantly higher with in-person interpretation (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05 for 7 of 8 patient items; physician mean score 4.9, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001, <em>r</em> = 0.54) compared to virtual interpretation (physician mean 3.8) conditions, while overall quality of the encounter remained the same. There was no significant difference in the length of encounters or in the number of times patients requested interpreter repetition between groups. A difference in average cost existed for in-person interpretation ($14.50) compared to video interpretation ($25) services for an average length appointment.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patients and otolaryngologists reported higher overall satisfaction with in-person compared to virtual interpretation services. In-person interpretation yielded better comprehension in the hearing loss population among Mandarin and Cantonese-speaking patients and demonstrated a cost advantage over virtual interpretation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7591,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Otolaryngology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is video interpretation compromising care for the hearing loss population?\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104499\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The convergence of hearing impairment and language barriers presents unique communication challenges to patients and practicing otolaryngologists. Limited data exist comparing interpretation methods for patients with hearing loss. Patients with hearing loss rely on visual cues, lip-reading, written communication, and/or comprehensive interaction techniques, which may encounter limitations by remote services. Herein, we examine patient and otolaryngology provider satisfaction, cost, and encounter efficiency between virtual and in-person interpretation among adults who speak Mandarin and Cantonese.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study is a prospective, randomized controlled trial in patients with moderate-to-severe bilateral hearing loss, Limited English Proficiency, and a primary language of Mandarin or Cantonese. Fifty-two patients were randomized to either in-person or virtual interpretation conditions. Patient satisfaction was measured using an 8-item Likert scale assessing communication effectiveness, encounter efficiency, and overall quality. Otolaryngology provider satisfaction was measured using a 1-item Likert scale. Encounter time, cost, and communication difficulty were measured and compared using independent sample <em>t</em>-tests.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Patient and otolaryngology provider satisfaction scores were significantly higher with in-person interpretation (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05 for 7 of 8 patient items; physician mean score 4.9, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001, <em>r</em> = 0.54) compared to virtual interpretation (physician mean 3.8) conditions, while overall quality of the encounter remained the same. There was no significant difference in the length of encounters or in the number of times patients requested interpreter repetition between groups. A difference in average cost existed for in-person interpretation ($14.50) compared to video interpretation ($25) services for an average length appointment.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patients and otolaryngologists reported higher overall satisfaction with in-person compared to virtual interpretation services. In-person interpretation yielded better comprehension in the hearing loss population among Mandarin and Cantonese-speaking patients and demonstrated a cost advantage over virtual interpretation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7591,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Otolaryngology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Otolaryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196070924002850\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196070924002850","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的听力障碍和语言障碍交织在一起,给患者和耳鼻喉科医生的沟通带来了独特的挑战。对听力损失患者的口译方法进行比较的数据有限。听力损失患者依赖于视觉提示、读唇、书面交流和/或综合互动技术,这些方法可能会受到远程服务的限制。本研究是一项前瞻性随机对照试验,研究对象为中重度双侧听力损失、英语能力有限且主要语言为普通话或粤语的患者。52 名患者被随机分配到现场或虚拟口译环境中。患者满意度采用 8 项李克特量表来评估沟通效果、会面效率和总体质量。耳鼻喉科医护人员的满意度采用 1 项李克特量表进行测量。结果与虚拟口译(医生平均分为 3.8 分)相比,患者和耳鼻喉科医生对现场口译的满意度得分明显更高(患者 8 个项目中的 7 个项目,p < 0.05;医生平均分为 4.9 分,p < 0.001,r = 0.54),而会诊的整体质量保持不变。两组患者的会诊时间和要求口译员重复翻译的次数没有明显差异。结论患者和耳鼻喉科医生对现场口译服务的总体满意度高于虚拟口译服务。在听力损失人群中,普通话和粤语患者对当面口译的理解能力更强,与虚拟口译相比具有成本优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is video interpretation compromising care for the hearing loss population?

Objective

The convergence of hearing impairment and language barriers presents unique communication challenges to patients and practicing otolaryngologists. Limited data exist comparing interpretation methods for patients with hearing loss. Patients with hearing loss rely on visual cues, lip-reading, written communication, and/or comprehensive interaction techniques, which may encounter limitations by remote services. Herein, we examine patient and otolaryngology provider satisfaction, cost, and encounter efficiency between virtual and in-person interpretation among adults who speak Mandarin and Cantonese.

Methods

This study is a prospective, randomized controlled trial in patients with moderate-to-severe bilateral hearing loss, Limited English Proficiency, and a primary language of Mandarin or Cantonese. Fifty-two patients were randomized to either in-person or virtual interpretation conditions. Patient satisfaction was measured using an 8-item Likert scale assessing communication effectiveness, encounter efficiency, and overall quality. Otolaryngology provider satisfaction was measured using a 1-item Likert scale. Encounter time, cost, and communication difficulty were measured and compared using independent sample t-tests.

Results

Patient and otolaryngology provider satisfaction scores were significantly higher with in-person interpretation (p < 0.05 for 7 of 8 patient items; physician mean score 4.9, p < 0.001, r = 0.54) compared to virtual interpretation (physician mean 3.8) conditions, while overall quality of the encounter remained the same. There was no significant difference in the length of encounters or in the number of times patients requested interpreter repetition between groups. A difference in average cost existed for in-person interpretation ($14.50) compared to video interpretation ($25) services for an average length appointment.

Conclusion

Patients and otolaryngologists reported higher overall satisfaction with in-person compared to virtual interpretation services. In-person interpretation yielded better comprehension in the hearing loss population among Mandarin and Cantonese-speaking patients and demonstrated a cost advantage over virtual interpretation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Otolaryngology
American Journal of Otolaryngology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
378
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Be fully informed about developments in otology, neurotology, audiology, rhinology, allergy, laryngology, speech science, bronchoesophagology, facial plastic surgery, and head and neck surgery. Featured sections include original contributions, grand rounds, current reviews, case reports and socioeconomics.
×
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