Hwang Kerry, De Silva Anurika, Simpson Julie A, LoGiudice Dina, Engel Lidia, Gilbert Andrew S, Croy Samantha, Haralambous Betty
National Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.
Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
J Telemed Telecare. 2022 Jan;28(1):58-67. doi: 10.1177/1357633X20914445. Epub 2020 Mar 30.
Evidence in the literature demonstrates the reliability of cognitive screening assessments using video technology in English-speaking older populations. However, this has not been tested in older culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) populations who require an interpreter, and what the associated costs would be. The aim was to determine if the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) could be reliably administered over video-interpreting methods compared with face-to-face interpreting. In addition, the study aims to compare the costs of video-interpreting with the costs of face-to-face interpreting.
We compared similarity of the RUDAS and GDS scores when administered face-to-face and via video-interpreting. The similarity of scores between methods was analysed using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots. A costing analysis was done using a micro-costing approach to estimate the costs of video-interpreting compared with face-to-face, extrapolated to a national level.
Analysis found no significant differences in the mean assessment scores between video-interpreting and face-to-face (RUDAS mean difference: -0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.09, 0.38, GDS mean difference: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.38, 0.83). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that 71% of RUDAS scores and 82% of GDS scores were within the maximum allowed difference of ±2 units. Costing analysis showed a A$7 saving per assessment when using video-interpreting compared with face-to-face, with a total national saving of A$247,350.
Video-interpreting was found to be as reliable as face-to-face interpreting for both RUDAS and GDS assessments. Cost analysis indicates that video-interpreting is cheaper than face-to-face interpreting.
文献中的证据表明，在讲英语的老年人群体中，使用视频技术进行认知筛查评估具有可靠性。然而，这尚未在需要口译员的文化和语言背景多样的老年人群体（CALD）中进行测试，也未探究相关成本情况。本研究旨在确定与面对面口译相比，罗兰通用痴呆评估量表（RUDAS）和老年抑郁量表（GDS）通过视频口译方法进行施测是否可靠。此外，该研究旨在比较视频口译与面对面口译的成本。
我们比较了RUDAS和GDS量表在面对面施测和通过视频口译施测时得分的相似性。使用配对t检验和布兰德-奥特曼图分析两种方法得分的相似性。采用微观成本核算方法进行成本分析，以估计视频口译与面对面口译相比的成本，并推算至全国范围。
分析发现，视频口译和面对面施测的平均评估得分无显著差异（RUDAS平均差异：-0.36；95%置信区间（CI）：-1.09，0.38；GDS平均差异：0.22；95%CI：-0.38，0.83）。布兰德-奥特曼图显示，71%的RUDAS得分和82%的GDS得分在最大允许差异±2单位范围内。成本分析表明，与面对面口译相比，使用视频口译每次评估可节省7澳元，全国总共可节省247,350澳元。
研究发现，对于RUDAS和GDS评估，视频口译与面对面口译一样可靠。成本分析表明，视频口译比面对面口译更便宜。
