82 Assessing the usage of and barriers to using language interpretation services in a Canadian tertiary paediatric center
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Canada has one of the highest immigration rates worldwide per population with roughly 447,180 permanent residents welcomed in 2022. Limited-English proficiency (LEP) populations face barriers in accessing health care with implications including delayed presentation, misdiagnosis, poor compliance, decreased patient comprehension, and adverse events. Adequate health care provider training in using language interpretation services (LIS) is crucial to improve the quality of patient care and reduce miscommunication. There is a lack of research in this area in Canadian paediatric populations. Objectives To identify attitudes towards and usage of LIS among health care providers in a tertiary paediatric center, as well as levels of LIS training received. Design/Methods An online survey was developed and distributed to paediatric health care professionals including physicians, residents/fellows, nursing staff, and allied health providers. Survey completion was anonymous and voluntary; data collection occurred from October 2022–February 2023. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and thematic analysis for free text responses. Results 345 respondents accessed the survey and 281(81%) completed it. Multiple paediatric professions were surveyed with most responses stemming from nursing staff, residents and physicians, and other allied health. 52.8% of respondents encountered a paediatric patient and/or their caregivers with a language barrier in English once per week or more. LIS were used by 53.1% of respondents once per week or more. 51.5% of respondents reported no previous training in using LIS in patient care, and 3.6% reported previous formal training. 57.9% of respondents felt LIS training was very beneficial to their role and 53.7% reported this increased their LIS usage. Overall, in-person interpreters were perceived as the most effective LIS modality followed by video and telephone interpreters. Barriers to using LIS included: inability to access desired modality and/or language; insufficient time; and lack of comfort in effective usage. Conclusion It was evident respondents felt LIS was integral to patient care, especially with an increasingly diverse population. Multiple barriers to using LIS were identified with likely applicability to other Canadian paediatric facilities. Suggested improvements were themed around improving LIS accessibility, improving LIS education and awareness, and increasing access to rare languages. This study has important implications for LIS and paediatric care, including informing educational and advocacy initiatives, policy change, and LIS resource allocation.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».