Cited by 46Migration, Health and TraumaInterpreting and Communication in HealthcarePsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Interpreter-mediated psychotherapy with trauma-affected refugees – A retrospective cohort study

Sander, Rikke, Laugesen, Henriette, Skammeritz, Signe, Mortensen, Erik Lykke, Carlsson, Jessica·2019·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to examine if interpreter-mediated psychotherapy with trauma-affected refugees affects treatment outcome. The clinical sample consisted of 825 patients who, as part of treatment, were offered 16 sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy. The cohort was allocated to two subsamples based on whether interpreters were used in psychotherapy or not and the treatment outcome for the two subsamples was compared. The primary outcome measure was severity of PTSD-symptoms (Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ)) and secondary outcome measures were depression and anxiety symptoms (Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25), Hamilton Depression and Anxiety rating scales (HAM-D, HAM-A)), somatisation (somatisation items of SCL-90 (SI-SCL-90)), quality of life (WHO-5-Well-being Index (WHO-5)) and functioning (Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF-F, GAF-S)). Compared to no use of interpreter, the use of interpreter in psychotherapy was associated with less improvement during treatment on the primary outcome measure HTQ and the secondary outcome measures HSCL-25, SI-SCL-90, SDS, WHO-5, HAM-A, but not on GAF-S, GAF-F and HAM-D. Based on the primary outcome measure HTQ and the majority of the secondary ratings the subsample in interpreter-mediated psychotherapy had less improvement in their mental health status compared to the subsample without interpreter.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.058

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 56 · Cited by 46

Authors
Sander, R., Laugesen, H., Skammeritz, S., Mortensen, E. L., & Carlsson, J.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Sander, Rikke
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
271
Pages
684-692
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904340689
Cited by
46
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Lundbeckfonden (R-197-2016-1730)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Migration, Health and Trauma
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
refugees, trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment outcomes, language barriers, depression, anxiety, somatization, quality of life, functioning
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Denmark, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Refugees, Retrospective Studies, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Translating, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review