Informal interpreting in general practice: Comparing the perspectives of general practitioners, migrant patients and family interpreters
Introduction
Due to worldwide migration the language barrier between migrant patients and healthcare providers has become a daily constraint in medical practice [1]. Professional interpreters are provided in some countries to bridge the language gap between patients and healthcare providers [2]. In Dutch general practice the language barrier is often tackled with the help of family interpreters [3]. Until 2012, before the introduced cuts in the health care budget, general practitioners (GPs) could make use of professional interpreters for free, although the use of family interpreters was also prevalent before these cuts [3]. Especially Turkish–Dutch migrant patients often bring a family member to the general practitioner (GP) to facilitate the communication, in up to 80% of GP consultations [4]. Despite their wide use, family interpreters can contribute to miscommunication by providing incorrect translations [1], omitting relevant information [5] and following their own agenda [6], [7]. Therefore, communication via family interpreters is not always optimal and might result in misunderstandings and conflicts between the three interlocutors [8], [9], which in turn could lead to adverse health outcomes [10].
A recent review of the literature has identified three important issues for the study of interpreting in medical settings, that is, interpreter’s role, power dynamics in the medical interaction and trust in the interpreter [11]. Scarce previous research has shown that patients and health care providers do not always share the same perspective on these issues. For instance, patients often trust family interpreters [12], while GPs do not [13]. However, we miss an overarching investigation of the perspectives of all three interlocutors (i.e. GPs, patients and family interpreters) focussing on the exploration of all three issues. Such a study is of vital importance because different perspectives could possibly explain miscommunication and conflicts between the three interlocutors [9]. Thus, the aim of this study is to uncover differences in perspectives of GPs, patients and family interpreters regarding interpreter’s role, power dynamics and trust in interpreted GP consultations.
First we will explore the different perspectives regarding the role of the family interpreter. The literature has shown that family interpreters perform different and sometimes conflicting roles in the medical interaction. For instance, besides the basic role of the linguistic agent, when interpreters provide linguistic translations only, they could also provide cultural information to patients and providers and thus act as cultural brokers [14]. When acting as caregivers, family interpreters provide extra medical information about the patient and keep track of prescribed medication [15]. When performing the role of the advocate, family interpreters advocate on behalf of the patients, for instance by exaggerating the medical symptoms to get a referral to the hospital [16], [17]. Considering the great variety of roles the family interpreter could perform and because patients, providers and family interpreters themselves might have different perspectives of the ideal role of the interpreter, which could result in conflicting expectations and miscommunication, it is important to unravel the perspectives of the different parties. Hence, the first research question is: what are the differences in perspectives of GPs, family interpreters and patients regarding the role of the family interpreter?
Second, the literature has investigated the influence of interpreters on power dynamics in bilingual medical consultations. Because interpreters are the only ones who speak both languages, they are able to control the course of the interaction and shift the power balance in the patient’s or provider’s favor [18]. Previous research among GPs has shown that family interpreters often shift the power balance in the patient’s favor leaving the providers feeling out of control [8], [9]. However, these findings have to our knowledge not yet been verified among patients and family interpreters, who could have a different perspective of the influence of the interpreter on power dynamics. Therefore, to fully understand the issue of power dynamics in interpreter-mediated GP consultations from all three perspectives, we propose the second research question: what is the difference in perspectives of the three interlocutors on power dynamics in interpreted GP interactions?
Finally, trust has shown to be an important factor in interpreter-mediated communication, being a precondition for rapport building and successful communication [19], [20]. Previous research focussing on patients’ and providers’ trust in family interpreters has shown that patients overall trust the family interpreters, because of their lengthy intimate relationships [12], [19]. Providers, on the contrary, have little trust in family interpreters as they have concerns about family interpreter’s linguistic competence and neutrality [13]. We apply the four dimensions of trust proposed by Hall and colleagues [21] to our research, in order to gain a deeper understanding of trust in interpreter-mediated consultations. The four dimensions clearly reflect the different characteristics associated with the work of interpreters [22], that is, (1) Competence, when interpreters are trusted for their ability to provide correct translations without making mistakes; (2) Honesty, when interpreters are trusted because they tell the truth and do not disguise information; (3) Confidentiality, when interpreters are trusted because they protect sensitive information provided by the patients; (4) Fidelity, when interpreters are trusted because they act in the best interests of the patient. Therefore, the final research question is: what are the differences in perspectives of GPs, patients and family interpreters regarding the four dimensions of trust?
Section snippets
Participants
To expand on an initial study on patients’ perspectives about interpreter-mediated communication in general practice (see [23]), for this study family interpreters and GPs were recruited using the snowballing method by the first author and three bilingual research assistants, who had excellent command of both the Turkish and the Dutch language. For the initial patient sample we have specifically targeted female respondents, because Turkish women have lower Dutch language proficiency than
Results
We will first briefly discuss some salient aspects of the communication process followed by the description of the main theoretical themes: interpreter’s role, power dynamics and trust.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to identify differences in perspectives of GPs, Turkish migrant patients and family interpreters on interpreter’s role, power dynamics and trust in interpreted GP interactions, which are shown to be important issues for the study of interpreting in medical settings [11]. Our findings show clear differences in perspectives on all three concepts, with the largest differences in GPs’ perspective on the one hand, and a shared perspective of patients and family interpreters
Role of funding and conflicts of interests
This research was funded by the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (grant number 022-003-037).
Acknowledgments
We thank our research assistants Esra Yavuz, Esma Sariaslan and Salbi Garabetian and all research participants for their invaluable contributions to the study.
References (32)
- et al.
Interruptions and resistance: a comparison of medical consultations with family and trained interpreters
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2010) - et al.
Ne diyor? (What does she say?): informal interpreting in general practice
Patient Educ. Couns.
(2010) - et al.
Working with interpreters in health care: a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies
Patient Educ. Couns.
(2013) - et al.
Doctor–patient communication in primary care with an interpreter: physician perceptions of professional and family interpreters
Patient Educ. Couns.
(2007) - et al.
Translators and mediators: bilingual young people’s accounts of their interpreting work in health care
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2005) - et al.
Communicative and strategic action in interpreted consultations in primary health care: a Habermasian perspective
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2006) The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review
Med. Care Res. Rev.
(2005)- et al.
Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literaturer
Health Serv. Res.
(2007) - et al.
If You Don’t Understand what I Mean: Interpreting in Health and Social Care
(2011) - et al.
Accessing medication information by ethnic minorities: barriers and possible solutions
Pharm, World Sci.
(2003)
Patterns of communication through interpreters: a detailed sociolinguistic analysis
J. Gen. Intern. Med.
Een arts van de wereld. [A doctor of the world]
General practitioners’ views on consultations with interpreters: a triad situation with complex issues
Scand. J. Prim. Health Care.
Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study
Int. J. Qual. Health C
Users experiences of interpreters: the critical role of trust
Interpreting
Caring for patients with limited English proficiency: the perspectives of small group practitioners
J. Gen. Intern. Med.
Cited by (17)
Teaching intercultural communication skills in healthcare to improve care for culturally and linguistically diverse patients
2023, Patient Education and CounselingPatient coaching in specialist consultations. Which patients are interested in a coach and what communication barriers do they perceive?
2019, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :On the other hand, if patients feel dominated by and dependent of this person, it is not supportive during the consultation. In these situations a professional companion/coach might be the second best choice, if trust and fidelity of the professional is guaranteed [51–55]. In this study the Set of Brief Screening Questions, Dutch version (SBSQ-D) questionnaire to discover the level of health literacy was used, while it may have been helpful to (also) characterize patients by a more broad definition of health literacy [56,57].
Informal interpreting in general practice: Are interpreters’ roles related to perceived control, trust, and satisfaction?
2018, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :This study is part of a larger research project on informal interpreting in general practice. Results of previous studies have been reported elsewhere [16,22,23]. In the present study we describe the observational findings and their relation with outcomes.
Working with interpreters in the psychiatric assessment of older adults from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
2020, International PsychogeriatricsInformal Interpreting in General Practice: Interpreters’ Roles Related to Trust and Control
2023, Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication