Lauridsen Iben Gad, Terkildsen Morten Deleuran, Sørensen Lisbeth Uhrskov
Department of Forensic Psychiatry, Aarhus University Hospital Psychiatry, Aarhus, Denmark.
Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Health, Denmark.
Arch Public Health. 2024 Dec 18;82(1):235. doi: 10.1186/s13690-024-01461-8.
Medical consultations depend on a shared linguistic understanding between the patient and physician. When language concordance is not possible, interpretation is required. Prior studies have revealed that professional in-person interpretation (PIPI) results in patients reporting higher satisfaction and a better understanding of things the physician explained. Despite this, language-discordance often results in using family and/or friends for ad hoc interpretation. This systematic review examines the linguistic aspect of medical interpretation by assessing the number of linguistic errors made and their relation to professional in-person interpretation (PIPI) or in-person ad hoc interpretation (IPAHI). PIPI was defined as people employed as interpreters, but with no specific requirements for education or experience. This systematic review examines studies comparing the number of errors when using PIPI and IPAHI. We performed a PICO-criteria-based search in five scientific databases. We screened English and Danish studies published between 1995 and October 2024. Furthermore, we screened references from, and citations of the included articles. We used the appropriate Cochrane Tool for risk of bias assessment. We identified six studies using a PICO search and one additional study by snowballing. The included studies revealed critical methodological differences, and consequently a statistical synthesis of results was not conducted. We found indications that the number of interpreting errors was significantly lower when using PIPI than family members for IPAHI. Interpreting error rates were not significantly lower when comparing PIPI to the use of medical staff without interpretation training for IPAHI. Generally, we found that the difference between PIPI and IPAHI tended to be more prominent when dealing with more severe diagnoses, e.g., incurable cancer. The methodological differences between included studies and the risk of bias within included studies limit the conclusions drawn in this review. Also, no other kinds of interpretation than PIPI and IPAHI were considered, and the recommendations are solely based on accuracy. Considering these limitations and the fact that no other systematic reviews within this highly specific topic exist, this review resulted in the following recommendations: 1) Professional in-person interpretation should be the first choice in language-discordant medical consultations. 2) If professional interpretation is not possible, using medical staff without interpretation training should be chosen before interpretation by family or friends. 3) All consultation participants should keep sentences short and straightforward, as this is related to a lower risk of omissions in interpretation.
医疗会诊依赖于患者与医生之间共同的语言理解。当无法实现语言一致时，就需要口译服务。先前的研究表明，专业现场口译（PIPI）能让患者报告更高的满意度，并且对医生所解释的内容有更好的理解。尽管如此，语言不匹配的情况往往导致利用家人和/或朋友进行临时口译。本系统综述通过评估所犯语言错误的数量及其与专业现场口译（PIPI）或现场临时口译（IPAHI）的关系，来考察医疗口译的语言方面。PIPI被定义为受雇担任口译员，但对教育背景或经验没有特定要求的人员。本系统综述考察了比较使用PIPI和IPAHI时错误数量的研究。我们在五个科学数据库中进行了基于PICO标准的检索。我们筛选了1995年至2024年10月期间发表的英文和丹麦语研究。此外，我们还筛选了纳入文章的参考文献和引用文献。我们使用了合适的Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具。我们通过PICO检索确定了六项研究，并通过滚雪球法另外找到了一项研究。纳入的研究显示出关键的方法学差异，因此未对结果进行统计综合。我们发现有迹象表明，在IPAHI中使用PIPI时的口译错误数量明显低于使用家庭成员时的情况。在将PIPI与未接受口译培训的医务人员用于IPAHI的情况进行比较时，口译错误率并没有显著降低。总体而言，我们发现当处理更严重的诊断（如无法治愈的癌症）时，PIPI和IPAHI之间的差异往往更为突出。纳入研究之间的方法学差异以及纳入研究中的偏倚风险限制了本综述得出的结论。此外，除了PIPI和IPAHI之外，没有考虑其他类型的口译，并且这些建议仅基于准确性。考虑到这些局限性以及在这个高度特定的主题上不存在其他系统综述这一事实，本综述得出了以下建议：1）在语言不匹配的医疗会诊中，专业现场口译应作为首选。2）如果无法进行专业口译，在选择家人或朋友进行口译之前，应选择未接受口译培训的医务人员。3）所有会诊参与者应保持句子简短明了，因为这与口译中遗漏的风险较低有关。
