Usage of Multilingual Mobile Translation Applications in Clinical Settings
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Communication between patients and medical staff can be challenging if both parties have different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Specialized applications can potentially alleviate these problems and significantly contribute to an effective, improved care process when foreign language patients are involved. OBJECTIVE: The objective for this paper was to discuss the experiences gained from a study carried out at the Hannover Medical School regarding the use of a mobile translation application in hospital wards. The conditions for successfully integrating these technologies in the care process are discussed. METHODS: iPads with a preinstalled copy of an exemplary multilingual assistance tool ("xprompt") designed for use in medical care were deployed on 10 wards. Over a period of 6 weeks, approximately 160 employees of the care staff had the opportunity to gather experiences with the devices while putting them to use during their work. Afterwards, the participants were asked to fill out an anonymous, paper-based questionnaire (17 questions) covering the usability of the iPads, translation apps in general, and the exemplary chosen application specifically. For questions requiring a rating, Likert scales were employed. The retained data were entered into an electronic survey system and exported to Microsoft Excel 2007 for further descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Of 160 possible participants, 42 returned the questionnaire and 39 completed the questions concerning the chosen app. The demographic data acquired via the questionnaire (ie, age, professional experience, gender) corresponded to the values for the entire care staff at the Hannover Medical School. Most respondents (35/39, 90%) had no previous experience with an iPad. On a 7-point scale, the participants generally rated mobile translation tools as helpful for communicating with foreign language patients (36/39, 92%; median=5, IQR=2). They were less enthusiastic about xprompt's practical use (36/39, median=4, IQR=2.5), although the app was perceived as easy-to-use (36/39, median=6, IQR=3) and there were no obvious problems with the usability of the device (36/39, median=6, IQR=2). CONCLUSIONS: The discrepancy between the expert ratings for xprompt (collected from the App Store and online) and the opinions of the study's participants can probably be explained by the differing approaches of the two user groups. The experts had clear expectations, whereas, without a more thorough introduction, our study participants perceived using the app as too time consuming in relation to the expected benefit. The introduction of such tools in today's busy care settings should therefore be more carefully planned to heighten acceptance of new tools. Still, the low return rate of the questionnaires only allows for speculations on the data, and further research is necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the local institutional review board (IRB), Trial ID number: 1145-2011.
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
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.
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?
ChatGPT has limitations in medical education, such as language barriers and cultural differences.
“Despite its potential benefits of using ChatGPT in medical education, it also has limitations, such as language barriers and cultural differences [29, 30].”
When inputted with different languages, ChatGPT may have difficulty in understanding and generating accurate responses.
“When inputted with different languages, ChatGPT may have difficulty in understanding and generating accurate responses.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale
(1996) · Usability Evaluation In Industry · doi:10.1201/9781498710411-35 · Cited by 8,989 · see citing works
Usability Evaluation In Industry
(1996) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781498710411 · Cited by 4,400 · see citing works
Karliner, L., Jacobs, E. A., Chen, A. H., & Mutha, S. (2006) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.x · Cited by 1,538 · see citing works
The Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale
Lewis, J. R., & Sauro, J. (2009) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12 · Cited by 1,278 · see citing works
Refining the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects Is Enough?
Virzi, R. A. (1992) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/001872089203400407 · Cited by 1,237 · see citing works
Disparities in Health Care by Race, Ethnicity, and Language Among the Insured
Fiscella, K. A., Franks, P. J., Doescher, M. P., & Saver, B. G. (2002) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200201000-00007 · Cited by 917 · see citing works
Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study
Divi, C., Koss, R. G., Schmaltz, S. P., & Loeb, J. M. (2007) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzl069 · Cited by 745 · see citing works
Bartlett, G., Blais, R., Tamblyn, R. M., Clermont, R. J., & MacGibbon, B. (2008) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.070690 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
Impact of language barriers on patient satisfaction in an emergency department
Carrasquillo, O., Orav, E. J., Brennan, T. A., & Burstin, H. R. (1999) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00293.x · Cited by 510 · see citing works
Getting By: Underuse of Interpreters by Resident Physicians
Diamond, L. C., Schenker, Y., Curry, L. A., Bradley, E. H., & Fernández, A. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0875-7 · Cited by 460 · see citing works
Timmins, C. (2002) · Journal of Midwifery & Women s Health · doi:10.1016/s1526-9523(02)00218-0 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Determining what individual SUS scores mean
(2009) · Journal of Usability Studies archive · doi:10.5555/2835587.2835589 · Cited by 412 · see citing works
Are Language Barriers Associated With Serious Medical Events in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients?
Cohen, A. L., Rivara, F. P., Marcuse, E. K., McPhillips, H. A., & Davis, R. (2005) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0521 · Cited by 394 · see citing works
On the dimensionality of the System Usability Scale: a test of alternative measurement models
Borsci, S., Federici, S., & Lauriola, M. (2009) · Cognitive Processing · doi:10.1007/s10339-009-0268-9 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
Schyve, P. M. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0365-3 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
Bridging the language barrier: the use of interpreters in primary care nursing
Gerrish, K., Chau, R. C. M., Sobowale, A., et al. (2004) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00510.x · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Waxman, M. A., & Levitt, M. A. (2000) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1067/mem.2000.108315 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Language Interpreting as Social Justice Work
Messias, D. K. H., McDowell, L., & Estrada, R. D. (2009) · Advances in Nursing Science · doi:10.1097/ans.0b013e3181a3af97 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Ou, L., Chen, J., & Hillman, K. (2010) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-182 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [14]Patel A iMedicalApps 2012 4 10 2012-07-12 iPhone medical app helps with patient communication-xprompt multilingual assistance (app review) http://www.imedicalapps.com/2010/04/iphone-medical-app-xprompt-app-review/
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Implications of language barriers for healthcare: a systematic review
Al Shamsi, H., Almutairi, A. G., Al Mashrafi, S., & Al Kalbani, T. (2020) · Oman Medical Journal · doi:10.5001/omj.2020.40 · Cited by 998 · see citing works
Krick, T., Huter, K., Domhoff, D., Schmidt, A., Rothgang, H., & Wolf-Ostermann, K. (2019) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4238-3 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Asi, Y. M., & Williams, C. (2018) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.11.003 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Li, J., Zong, H., Wu, E., Wu, R., Peng, Z., Zhao, J., Yang, L., Xie, H., & Shen, B. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05738-y · Cited by 104 · see citing works
ChatGPT in Medical Education and Research: A Boon or a Bane?
Jeyaraman, M., K, S. P., Jeyaraman, N., Nallakumarasamy, A., Yadav, S., & Bondili, S. K. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.44316 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
- Authors
- Albrecht, U.-V., Behrends, M., Matthies, H. K., & von Jan, U.
- Affiliations
- Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Albrecht, Urs-Vito
- Venue
- JMIR mhealth and uhealth
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2013-04-23
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e4
- ISSN
- 2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4114476
- OpenAlex
- W1972389364
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Translation Studies and Practices
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Keywords
- multilingual communication, patient-provider communication, hospital wards, iPad, usability, care workers, language barriers, user experience, Hannover Medical School, speech recognition
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
