Communication interventions to support people with limited English proficiency in healthcare: a systematic review. (3rd April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rajiv, Prithi; Riggs, Elisha; Brown, Stephanie; Szwarc, Josef; Yelland, Jane
• Is Part Of: Journal of communication in healthcare. Volume 14:Number 2(2021)
• Page Start: 176
• Page End: 187
• Publication Date: 2021-04-03
• Subjects: Communication -- limited English proficiency -- language barriers; Communication in medicine -- Periodicals; Communication -- Periodicals; Health promotion -- Periodicals; 610.696
• DOI: 10.1080/17538068.2021.1890518
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1753-8068

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background: Patients with limited English proficiency rely on communication supports to access and engage with healthcare. This commonly involves professional interpreting but may also include other modalities. Inadequate provision of communication supports has been associated with reduced healthcare access and poor patient outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize evidence of healthcare communication interventions for people with limited English proficiency and document reported patient outcomes. Methods: The databases MEDLINE (via OVID), EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies evaluating healthcare communication interventions published between 2009 and 2020. Results: 23 studies met the eligibility criteria. Patients reported a highly positive experience of professional interpreting and consistently favoured in-person interpreting, followed by videoconferencing. Telephone interpreting was least preferred. Unverified bilingual providers appeared to improve patient-provider communication however there remains a risk of miscommunication, as neither patient or provider are completely competent in patient-preferred and physician-preferred languages. There is inadequate evidence to support the routine use of audio recordings of consultations, instructional videos and speech-to-speech translation devices. Conclusions: There is an increasing body of evidence evaluating communication interventions for patients with limited English proficiency. Existing research has focused on professional interpreting, however further evaluation of alternative modalities may have significant implications for improving patient-provider communication. With the rise of remote healthcare consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic, patient preference for videoconferencing over telephone interpreting provides timely evidence to inform policy development supporting the delivery of telehealth practice for consumers who are vulnerable to missing vital healthcare information.