MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138459403 · doi:10.1108/mhrj-12-2013-0040

Working through interpreters in old age psychiatry: a literature review

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

Bibliographic record

VenueMental Health Review Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOInterpreterMental healthCochrane LibraryMEDLINEMedical libraryMainstreamSystematic reviewMedicinePsychologyHealth careMedical educationFamily medicinePsychiatryAlternative medicineNursingPsychological interventionComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMental Health Review JournalSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207