Video Remote Sign Language Interpreting in Health Communication for Deaf People: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The current standard of interpretation provision is not efficacious or not acceptable to Deaf patients who communicate using sign language. In-person or video relay interpretation (VRI) sign language interpretation is largely unavailable. There are no clear data on the availability of VRI or in-person interpretation. Given the limited number of available sign language interpreters and the cost, VRI may be more available than in-person. Existing evidence tends to focus on assessing personal preferences of Deaf users regarding interpretation and interpreters' preferences. Although respecting preferences is essential, there is a vacuum of knowledge on how the format of access to interpretation impacts the quality of communication between Deaf persons and health personnel. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to look at the effectiveness of the VRI system in improving communication outcomes between Deaf patients and doctors versus the available standard of care of the usual communication tools, including informal interpretation, lip- or note-reading, and using their mobile phones to contact a formal or informal interpreter, for Deaf patients aged 18 years and older in Bogota, Colombia. METHODS: This is a randomized controlled trial with a total sample size of 216 participants, divided into 2 groups: an intervention group, which receives a medical appointment using VRI, and a control group, which receives a medical appointment using standard communication. Both the Deaf participants and the health care professionals will be blinded to the allocation, as they will not know whether the appointment will involve VRI or standard communication until they arrive at the office. The primary outcome measure will be an assessment of communication using a Doctor-Patient Communication Scale. This scale was translated into Colombian Sign Language following a rigorous cultural adaptation and translation procedure. Furthermore, the database contains key clinical variables and recommendations provided by the doctor during a general medicine appointment. We will compute associations. RESULTS: Recruitment opened on August 24, 2023. As of July 2024, 180 participants had been enrolled. The intervention and data collection were finalized in October 2024. The findings of this study are expected to be submitted for publication in early 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide rigorous evidence regarding information and communications technology intervention in health care, addressing empirical challenges in using inclusive research designs in public health. In addition, effective VRI models that address the challenges faced by Deaf people will be tested, implemented, and maintained in low- and middle-income countries. A disability-inclusive evaluative tool for quality communication mediated by VRI in health care is also tested. Ultimately, this will lead to evidence-based recommendations for implementing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in mobile health contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05966623; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05966623. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/64590.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,035 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».