The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interpreter Use and Satisfaction With Interpersonal Aspects of Care for Spanish-Speaking Patients
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many patients have limited English proficiency and require an interpreter. The authors evaluated the effect of current interpreting practices on Spanish-speaking patients' satisfaction with the patient-provider relationship. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of 457 patients seen in a public hospital emergency department. Measures were satisfaction with the provider's friendliness, respectfulness, concern, ability to make the patient comfortable, and time spent for the exam. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients communicated adequately with their provider without the use of an interpreter (group 1), 120 patients communicated through an interpreter (88% of whom were ad hoc interpreters; group 2), and 100 patients communicated directly with the provider but said an interpreter should have been called (group 3). Compared with patients in group 1, patients who communicated through an interpreter (group 2) rated their provider as less friendly, less respectful, less concerned for the patient as a person, and less likely to make the patient comfortable. Patients who said an interpreter should have been called (group 3) had the lowest satisfaction ratings; compared with group 2, they were less satisfied with their provider's friendliness, concern for the patient as a person, efforts to make the patient comfortable, and amount of time spent. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who communicated through an interpreter or who did not have an interpreter when they thought one was necessary were less satisfied with the patient-provider relationship. Further efforts are needed to ensure interpreter availability and proper interpretation technique.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)
SHAPIRO, S. S., & WILK, M. B. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 · Cited by 23,480
Use and Effectiveness of Interpreters in an Emergency Department
Baker, D. W. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530340047028 · Cited by 428
Self-citation
Cited by
Karliner, L. S., Jacobs, E. A., Chen, A. H., & Mutha, S. (2007) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.x · Cited by 1,530
Can Cultural Competency Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities? A Review and Conceptual Model
Brach, C., & Fraserirector, I. (2000) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558700057001s09 · Cited by 1,160
Diamond, L., Izquierdo, K., Canfield, D., Matsoukas, K., & Gany, F. (2019) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-019-04847-5 · Cited by 586
(2002) · PubMed · Cited by 450
Fernandez, A., Schillinger, D., Warton, E. M., Adler, N., Moffet, H. H., Schenker, Y., Salgado, M. V., Ahmed, A., & Karter, A. J. (2011) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1507-6 · Cited by 334
Metadata
- Authors
- Baker, D. W., Hayes, R., & Fortier, J. P.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 1998-10
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1461-1470
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976961815
- Cited by
- 385
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interpreter Use and Satisfaction With Interpersonal Aspects of Care for Spanish-Speaking Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00005650-199810000-00004
- The paper
- Baker, D. W., Hayes, R., & Fortier, J. P. (1998). Interpreter Use and Satisfaction With Interpersonal Aspects of Care for Spanish-Speaking Patients. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199810000-00004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.