MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7123345319 · doi:10.1075/lcs.25011.man

Breaking language barriers in healthcare

2025· article· en· W7123345319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Earl John M. Manalo, Robin A. De Los Reyes

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Culture and Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careComprehensionLanguage barrierEquity (law)Health communicationPublic healthMultilingualism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Good communication in multilingual healthcare settings is vital to delivering patient-centered care. This study investigated the communication experiences of physicians’ and patients at Zamboanga City Medical Center (ZCMC), a public hospital in a multilingual city in the Philippines, focusing on the linguistic dynamics among Chabacano, Bisaya, and Tausug speakers during medical consultations. Employing a qualitative-ethnographic design, the study utilized direct observations to analyze interactions guided by the Calgary-Cambridge Model. The study showed that the physicians’ and patients’ communication experiences were marked by their multilingual reality through the use of translanguaging — a dynamic use of multiple languages — tailored to accomplish specific communicative tasks during consultations. Physicians and patients used translanguaging, regardless of whether they shared a common language, to facilitate better comprehension and engagement. The study highlights the critical need for integrating multilingual competencies into healthcare and recommends transforming health institutions such as ZCMC into a patient-centered space, by providing policies for inclusive communication. In doing so, health institutions can improve patient communication experiences, advancing health equity and universal healthcare goals in linguistically diverse regions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.407 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Culture and SocietySame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207