Video Remote Interpreting Technology in Health Care: Cross-Sectional Study of Deaf Patients' Experiences.
Poorna Kushalnagar, Raylene Paludneviciene, Raja Kushalnagar
PMID 30855233WHAT IT FOUND
Deaf adults who used video remote interpreting mostly rated the service unsatisfactory.
Those who felt it interfered with sharing health information were less likely to be satisfied.
Key findings
01About 41% of deaf patients rated video remote interpreting quality satisfactory, while 59% rated it unsatisfactory.
02Deaf patients who said video remote interpreting interfered with disclosure of health information were less likely to be satisfied with its quality.
03Respondents who did not have a regular health care provider were 1.5 times more likely to rate video remote interpreting quality satisfactory than those who did.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was cross-sectional and self-reported. It cannot show whether video remote interpreting caused dissatisfaction or communication problems. Participants were recruited through purposive, snowball and respondent-driven sampling, not random sampling. The paper did not ask whether patients chose video remote interpreting or were forced to use it. The paper did not separate whether interference came from the interpreter or the video technology. Only patients who had used video remote interpreting in the past 12 months were analysed.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that video remote interpreting causes poor communication or dissatisfaction. The study reports associations from patients who used it, not a controlled comparison of video remote interpreting with on-site interpreting.