Using Voice-to-Voice Machine Translation to Overcome Language Barriers in Clinical Communication: An Exploratory Study.

clinical communication language barriers machine translation

Journal

Journal of general internal medicine

ISSN: 1525-1497

Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med

Pays: United States

ID NLM: 8605834

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 Feb 2024

Historique:

received: 16 10 2023

accepted: 16 01 2024

medline: 13 2 2024

pubmed: 13 2 2024

entrez: 12 2 2024

Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Machine translation (MT) apps are used informally by healthcare professionals in many settings, especially where interpreters are not readily available. As MT becomes more accurate and accessible, it may be tempting to use MT more widely. Institutions and healthcare professionals need guidance on when and how these applications might be used safely and how to manage potential risks to communication. Explore factors that may hinder or facilitate communication when using voice-to-voice MT. Health professionals volunteered to use a voice-to-voice MT app in routine encounters with their patients. Both health professionals and patients provided brief feedback on the experience, and a subset of consultations were observed. Doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals working in the Primary Care Division of the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. Achievement of consultation goals; understanding and satisfaction; willingness to use MT again; difficulties encountered; factors affecting communication when using MT. Fourteen health professionals conducted 60 consultations in 18 languages, using one of two voice-to-voice MT apps. Fifteen consultations were observed. Professionals achieved their consultation goals in 82.7% of consultations but were satisfied with MT communication in only 53.8%. Reasons for dissatisfaction included lack of practice with the app and difficulty understanding patients. Eighty-six percent of patients thought MT-facilitated communication was easy, and most participants were willing to use MT in the future (73% professionals, 84% patients). Experiences were more positive with European languages. Several conditions and speech practices were identified that appear to affect communication when using MT. While professional interpreters remain the gold standard for overcoming language barriers, voice-to-voice MT may be acceptable in some clinical situations. Healthcare institutions and professionals must be attentive to potential sources of MT errors and ensure the conditions necessary for safe and effective communication. More research in natural settings is needed to inform guidelines and training on using MT in clinical communication.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE

Explore factors that may hinder or facilitate communication when using voice-to-voice MT.

DESIGN METHODS

Health professionals volunteered to use a voice-to-voice MT app in routine encounters with their patients. Both health professionals and patients provided brief feedback on the experience, and a subset of consultations were observed.

PARTICIPANTS METHODS

Doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals working in the Primary Care Division of the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland.

MAIN MEASURES METHODS

Achievement of consultation goals; understanding and satisfaction; willingness to use MT again; difficulties encountered; factors affecting communication when using MT.

KEY RESULTS RESULTS

Fourteen health professionals conducted 60 consultations in 18 languages, using one of two voice-to-voice MT apps. Fifteen consultations were observed. Professionals achieved their consultation goals in 82.7% of consultations but were satisfied with MT communication in only 53.8%. Reasons for dissatisfaction included lack of practice with the app and difficulty understanding patients. Eighty-six percent of patients thought MT-facilitated communication was easy, and most participants were willing to use MT in the future (73% professionals, 84% patients). Experiences were more positive with European languages. Several conditions and speech practices were identified that appear to affect communication when using MT.

CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS

While professional interpreters remain the gold standard for overcoming language barriers, voice-to-voice MT may be acceptable in some clinical situations. Healthcare institutions and professionals must be attentive to potential sources of MT errors and ensure the conditions necessary for safe and effective communication. More research in natural settings is needed to inform guidelines and training on using MT in clinical communication.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1007/s11606-024-08641-w PMID: 38347346

pubmed: 38347346

doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08641-w

pii: 10.1007/s11606-024-08641-w

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Informations de copyright

Références

Price-Wise G. Language, Culture and Medical Tragedy: The Case of Willie Ramirez. Health Affairs Forefront, November 19, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1377/forefront.20081119.000463 .

Al Shamsi H, Almutairi AG, Al Mashrafi S, Al Kalbani T. Implications of Language Barriers for Healthcare: A Systematic Review. Oman Med J. 2020 35(2):e122

pubmed: 32411417 pmcid: 7201401 doi: 10.5001/omj.2020.40

Johnstone MJ, Kanitsaki O. Culture, language, and patient safety: making the link. International Journal for Quality in Health care. 2006 18(5):383-8.

pubmed: 16956931 doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl039

Divi C, Koss RG, Schmaltz SP, Loeb JM. Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: A pilot study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19:60–67

pubmed: 17277013 doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl069

Schyve PM. Language differences as a barrier to quality and safety in health care: the Joint Commission perspective. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):360–361.

Chaet DH. AMA Code of Medical Ethics’ Opinions Related to Language and Hierarchy in Medicine. AMA Journal of Ethics. 2017 19(3):260-2.

doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.3.coet1-1703

Jacobs E, Lauderdale D, Meltzer D, Shorey J, Levinson W, Thisted R. The impact of interpreter services on delivery of health care to limited English proficient patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2001; 16:468–74.

pubmed: 11520385 pmcid: 1495243 doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016007468.x

Karliner LS, Jacobs EA, Chen AH, Mutha S. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007 42(2):727-54.

pubmed: 17362215 pmcid: 1955368 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.x

Flores G. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev 2005; 62: 255–299.

pubmed: 15894705 doi: 10.1177/1077558705275416

Brandl EJ, Schreiter S, Schouler-Ocak M. Are Trained Medical Interpreters Worth the Cost? A Review of the Current Literature on Cost and Cost-Effectiveness. J Immigr Minor Health. 2020 22(1):175-181..

pubmed: 31256314 doi: 10.1007/s10903-019-00915-4

Jaeger FN, Pellaud N, Laville B, Klauser P. The migration-related language barrier and professional interpreter use in primary health care in Switzerland. BMC health services research. 2019 19:1-0.

Jaeger FN, Pellaud N, Laville B, Klauser P. Barriers to and solutions for addressing insufficient professional interpreter use in primary healthcare. BMC health services research. 2019 19(1):1-1.

doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4628-6

Czapka EA, Gerwing J, Sagbakken M. Invisible rights: Barriers and facilitators to access and use of interpreter services in health care settings by Polish migrants in Norway. Scand J Public Health. 2019 47(7):755-764.

pubmed: 30345877 doi: 10.1177/1403494818807551

Würth KM, Reiter-Theil S, Langewitz W, Schuster S. “Getting by” in a Swiss Tertiary Hospital: The Inconspicuous Complexity of Decision-making Around Patients’ Limited Language Proficiency. J Gen Intern Med. 2018 33(11):1885-1891.

pubmed: 30143979 pmcid: 6206329 doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4618-0

Diamond LC, Schenker Y, Curry L, Bradley EH, Fernandez A. Getting by: underuse of interpreters by resident physicians. Journal of general internal medicine. 2009 24(2):256-62.

pubmed: 19089503 doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0875-7

Mayo R, Parker VG, Sherrill WW, et al. Cutting corners: provider perceptions of interpretation services and factors related to use of an ad hoc interpreter. Hispanic Health Care International. 2016 14(2):73-80.

pubmed: 27257220 doi: 10.1177/1540415316646097

Tran K, Morra D, Lo V, Quan S, Wu R. The use of smartphones on General Internal Medicine wards: a mixed methods study. Appl Clin Inform. 2014 5(3):814-23.

pubmed: 25298819 pmcid: 4187096 doi: 10.4338/ACI-2014-02-RA-0011

Al Thomairy N, Mummaneni M, Alsalamah S, Moussa N, Coustasse A. Use of smartphones in hospitals. The health care manager. 2015 34(4):297-307.

doi: 10.1097/HCM.0000000000000080

Rahman AA. Rising Up to the Challenge: Strategies to Improve Health Care Delivery for Resettled Syrian Refugees in Canada. Paediatric Health 2017; 94(1): 42-44.

Patil S, Davies P. Use of Google Translate in medical communication: evaluation of accuracy. BMJ. 2014 349:g7392.

pubmed: 25512386 pmcid: 4266233 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7392

Herrmann-Werner A, Loda T, Zipfel S, Holderried M, Holderried F, Erschens R. Evaluation of a Language Translation App in an Undergraduate Medical Communication Course: Proof-of-Concept and Usability Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2021 9(12):e31559.

pubmed: 34860678 pmcid: 8686471 doi: 10.2196/31559

Turner AM, Choi YK, Dew K, et al. Evaluating the usefulness of translation technologies for emergency response communication: a scenario-based study. JMIR public health and surveillance. 2019 5(1):e11171.

pubmed: 30688652 pmcid: 6369422 doi: 10.2196/11171

Ji X, Chow E, Abdelhamid K, et al. Utility of mobile technology in medical interpretation: A literature review of current practices. Patient education and counseling. 2021 104(9):2137-45.

pubmed: 33653659 doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.02.019

Khander A, Farag S, Chen KT. Identification and evaluation of medical translator mobile applications using an adapted APPLICATIONS scoring system. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2018 24(8):p. 598.

doi: 10.1089/tmj.2017.0150

“Machine Translation.” Wikipedia, 4 Jan. 2022, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine translation.

Kirkpatrick K. Across the language barrier. Communications of the ACM. 2020 63(3):15-7.

doi: 10.1145/3379495

Pocketalk Translator. https://europe.pocketalk.com/ . Accessed 20.04.2022.

Jarvisen Translator. https://www.jarvisen.com/ . Accessed 20.04.2022.

Panayiotou A, Gardner A, Williams S, et al. Language Translation Apps in Health Care Settings: Expert Opinion. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 7(4):e11316.

pubmed: 30964446 pmcid: 6477569 doi: 10.2196/11316

Albrecht UV, Behrends M, Schmeer R, Matthies HK, von Jan U. Usage of multilingual mobile translation applications in clinical settings. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2013 Apr 23;1(1):e4. Erratum in: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2013 1(2):e19.

Liebling DJ, Lahav M, Evans A, et al. Unmet Needs and Opportunities for Mobile Translation AI. In, Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2020 21 (pp. 10).

Börner N, Sponholz S, König K, Brodkorb S, Bührer C, Roehr CC. Erste Erfahrungen mit Google Translate in der Neonatologie [Google translate is not sufficient to overcome language barriers in neonatal medicine]. Klin Padiatr. 2013 225(7):413-7.

pubmed: 23946092

Chen X, Acosta S, Barry AE. Machine or Human? Evaluating the Quality of a Language Translation Mobile App for Diabetes Education Material. JMIR Diabetes. 2017 2(1):e13..

pubmed: 30291084 pmcid: 6238892 doi: 10.2196/diabetes.7446

Palluzi J. Results of using Google translate for medical communication on the Android OS. https://www.imedicalapps.com/2010/07/results-of-using-google-translate-for-medical-communication-on-the-android-os/ . Accessed 07 December 2021.

pubmed: 30688652 pmcid: 6369422 doi: 10.2196/11171

Moberly T. Doctors are cautioned against using Google Translate in consultations. BMJ 2018; 363:k4546

pubmed: 30373902 doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4546

Dew KN, Turner AM, Choi YK, Bosold A, Kirchhoff K. Development of machine translation technology for assisting health communication: A systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2018;85:64.

doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.07.018

Iconic Translation Machines. The Essential Guide to Neural MT #1 : Intro to Neural Machine Translation Part 1. Youtube, Uploaded 02.01.2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1kSz6qZ288&ab_channel=IconicTranslationMachines .

Miller JM, Harvey EM, Bedrick S, Mohan P, Calhoun E. Simple patient care instructions translate best: Safety guidelines for physician use of Google translate. Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management. 2018 25(1):18-27.

Taira BR, Kreger V, Orue A, Diamond LC. A Pragmatic Assessment of Google Translate for Emergency Department Instructions. J Gen Intern Med. 2021 36(11):3361-3365.

pubmed: 33674922 pmcid: 8606479 doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06666-z

Kaliyadan F, Al Dhafiri M, Al Dossari S. Online Translation Tools as an Adjunct in Teleconsultations. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2021 12(1):154-155.

pubmed: 33768040 pmcid: 7982044 doi: 10.4103/idoj.IDOJ_650_20

Lee W, Khoong EC, Zeng B, et al. Evaluation of Commercially Available Machine Interpretation Applications for Simple Clinical Communication. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2023 13:1-7.

Abreu R, Adriatico T. Spanish for the Audiologist: Is There an App for That? Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations. 2015;22(3):122–8.

Hwang K, Williams S, Zucchi E, et al. Testing the use of translation apps to overcome everyday healthcare communication in Australian aged‐care hospital wards—An exploratory study. Nursing Open. 2022 9(1):578-85.

pubmed: 34704379 doi: 10.1002/nop2.1099

Vieira LN, O’Hagan M, O’Sullivan C. Understanding the societal impacts of machine translation: a critical review of the literature on medical and legal use cases. Information, Communication & Society. 2021 24(11):1515-32.

doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1776370

Liebling DJ, Lahav M, Evans A, et al. Unmet needs and opportunities for mobile translation AI. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems 2020;21: 1–13.

Paluzzi J. Results of using Google translate for medical communication on the Android OS Medical Apps Team. July 9, 2010. [cited 2015–09–12]. Accessed 07 December 2021.

Haith-Cooper M. Mobile translators for non-English-speaking women accessing maternity services. British Journal of Midwifery 2014;22(11): 795-803.

doi: 10.12968/bjom.2014.22.11.795

pubmed: 34860678 pmcid: 8686471 doi: 10.2196/31559

Birkenbeuel J, Joyce H, Sahyouni R, et al. Google translate in healthcare: preliminary evaluation of transcription, translation and speech synthesis accuracy. BMJ Innovations. 2021;7:422-429. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2019-000347 .

Downie J, Dickson A. Unsound Evaluations of Medical Machine Translation Risk Patient Health and Confidentiality. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):1001.

pubmed: 31260014 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1856

Moberly T. Doctors choose Google Translate to communicate with patients because of easy access. BMJ. 2018 362:k3974.

pubmed: 30232066 doi: 10.1136/bmj.k3974

Mehandru N, Robertson S, Salehi N. Reliable and Safe Use of Machine Translation in Medical Settings. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ‘22), June 21–24, 2022, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Khoong EC, Rodriguez JA. A research agenda for using machine translation in clinical medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2022 37(5):1275-7.

pubmed: 35132559 pmcid: 8971300 doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07164-y

HUG : Chiffres-clé 2022. https://panorama.hug.ch/sites/default/files/2023-05/hug-chiffres-cles-2022-fr-2505.pdf . Accessed July 19, 2023.

Hudelson P, Dominicé Dao M, Durieux-Paillard S. Quality in practice: integrating routine collection of patient language data into hospital practice. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013 25(4):437-42.

pubmed: 23696580 doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzt035

Hudelson P, Dominice Dao M, Perneger T, Durieux-Paillard S. A “migrant friendly hospital” initiative in Geneva, Switzerland: evaluation of the effects on staff knowledge and practices. PloS one. 2014 9(9):e106758.

pubmed: 25198063 pmcid: 4157774 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106758

Service de Médecine de Premier Recours : Activités Médicales. https://www.hug.ch/medecine-de-premier-recours . Accessed 15.02.2022.

Microsoft. 2023. Microsoft Translator (V3.0). [Mobile app]. [April 17, 2023].

Pocketalk. Pocketalk W. https://europe.pocketalk.com/product/pocketalk-w/ . Accessed 02.02.2024.

Microsoft Translator is now certified compliant to meet your needs. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/translator/blog/2019/02/06/microsoft-translator-is-now-certified-compliant-to-meet-your-needs/#:~:text=HIPAA%3A%20The%20Microsoft%20Translator%20service,can%20handle%20personal%20health%20information . Accessed April 17, 2023.

Pocketalk ensures providers can meet their patient’s communication needs. https://www.pocketalk.com/business/healthcare/?business-type=Healthcare . Accessed April 17, 2023.

Kapoor R, Corrales G, Flores MP, Feng L, Cata JP. Use of Neural Machine Translation Software for Patients With Limited English Proficiency to Assess Postoperative Pain and Nausea. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 5(3):e221485.

pubmed: 35258580 pmcid: 8905382 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.1485

« Standard Language. » (22 July 2023). In Wikipedia. URL : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_language#:~:text=6%20Further%20reading-,Linguistic%20standardization,culturally%20superior%20form%20of%20speech . Accessed 02.02.2024.