Remote interpretation in medical encounters: a systematic review.
We conducted a systematic review of remote interpretation. Any published or unpublished research article that had telephone or videoconferenced interpretation as an intervention was included in the review. Nine articles were identified: seven on telephone and two on videoconferenced interpretation. Only one study was a randomized controlled trial. Remote interpretation was associated with shorter intervals between consultations, but there were no consistent differences in relation to consultation length. Client and doctor satisfaction was as good with remote interpretation as with face-to-face interpretation, but interpreters preferred face-to-face interpretation. Although the costs associated with remote interpreting are higher, especially in the case of videoconferencing, these may be offset by efficiency gains. The review suggests that remote interpretation is an acceptable and accurate alternative to traditional methods, although the associated costs are higher.
Azarmina
Pejman
P
Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London, London, UK. P.Azarmina@pcps.ucl.ac.uk
Wallace
Paul
P
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011320:Primary Health Care; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000592:standards*; D019114:Remote Consultation / Q000592:standards*; D013689:Telephone / Q000592:standards*; D049269:Videoconferencing / Q000592:standards*