Interpreter-mediated psychotherapy with trauma-affected refugees – A retrospective cohort study
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Other potential predictors of poor treatment outcome such as lack of social support, low integration and lack of Danish language skills were identified in other studies.
“Other potential predictors of poor treatment outcome such as lack of social support, low integration (Sonne et al., 2016) and lack of Danish language skills (Sander et al., 2018) were identified in other studies.”
From Refugees versus persons family reunified to a refugee: A comparison of sociodemographic factors, trauma history, baseline psychopathology and treatment effectiveness (2023) · cites this paper as Sander et al., 2018
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