82 Assessing the usage of and barriers to using language interpretation services in a Canadian tertiary paediatric center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".