MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2138459403 · doi:10.1108/mhrj-12-2013-0040

Working through interpreters in old age psychiatry: a literature review

2015· review· en· W2138459403 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saeed Farooq, Paul Kingston, Jemma Regan

Notice bibliographique

RevueMental Health Review Journal · 2015
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCINAHLPsycINFOInterpreterMental healthCochrane LibraryMEDLINEMedical libraryMainstreamSystematic reviewMedicinePsychologyHealth careMedical educationFamily medicinePsychiatryAlternative medicineNursingPsychological interventionComputer sciencePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to systematically appraise the effect of use of interpreters for mental health problems in old age. The primary objective of the review is to assess the impact of a language barrier for assessment and management in relation to mental health problems in the old age. The secondary objectives are to assess the effect of the use of interpreters on patient satisfaction and quality of care, identify good practice and make recommendations for research and practice in the old age mental health. Design/methodology/approach – The following data sources were searched for publications between 1966 and 2011: PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. The authors found in previous reviews that a substantial number of papers from developing and non-English speaking countries are published in journals not indexed in mainstream databases, and devised a search strategy using Google which identified a number of papers, which could not be found when the search was limited to scientific data bases only (Farooq et al., 2009). The strategy was considered especially important for this review which focuses on communication across many different languages. Thus, the authors conducted a search of the World Wide Web using Google Scholar, employing the search term Medical Interpreters and Mental Health. The search included literature in all languages. The authors also searched the reference lists of included and excluded studies for additional relevant papers. Bibliographies of systematic review articles published in the last five years were also examined to identify pertinent studies. Findings – Only four publications related specifically to “old age” and 33 addressed “interpreting” and “psychiatry” generally. Four articles presented original research (Parnes and Westfall, 2003; Hasset and George, 2002; Sadavoy et al. , 2004; Van de Mieroop et al. , 2012). One article (Shah, 1997) reports an “anecdotal descriptive account” of interviewing elderly people from ethnic backgrounds in a psychogeriatric service in Melbourne and does not report any data. Therefore, only four papers met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and present original research in the field of “old age”, “psychiatry” and “interpreting”. None of these papers present UK-based research. One is a quantitative study from Australia (Hasset and George, 2002), the second is a qualitative study from Canada (Sadavoy et al. , 2004), in the third paper Van de Mieroop et al. (2012) describe community interpreting in a Belgian old home and the final paper is an American case study (Parnes and Westfall, 2003). Practical implications – Interviewing older patients for constructs like cognitive function and decision-making capacity through interpreters can pose significant clinical and legal problems. There is urgent need for training mental health professionals for developing skills to overcome the language barrier and for interpreters to be trained for work in psychogeriatrics. Social implications – The literature on working through interpreters is limited to a few empirical studies. This has serious consequences for service users such as lack of trust in services, clinical errors and neglect of human rights. Further studies are needed to understand the extent of problem and how effective interpreting and translating services can be provided in the routine clinical practice. It is also essential to develop a standard of translation services in mental health that can be measured for their quality and also efficiency. At present such a quality standard is not available in the UK, unlike Sweden (see www.regeringen.se/sb/d/3288/a/19564 ). This omission is disturbing – especially when decisions on human rights are being considered as part of the Mental Health Act. Such a standard can best be achieved by collaboration between medical profession and linguists’ professional associations (Cambridge et al. , 2012). Originality/value – Whilst translation/interpretation has been addressed more generally in mental health: specific considerations related to old age psychiatry are almost absent. This needs urgent rectification given that a large proportion of older people from BME communities will require translation and interpretation services.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,416
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,012
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,197
Tête enseignante GPT0,563
Écart entre enseignants0,366 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMental Health Review JournalMême sujetInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareTravaux en français237 207