The European journal of general practice · 2026
Technological translation tools for official language minorities in primary and emergency care: A rapid scoping review and environmental scan.
Scoping ReviewСтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roex Ann, Torsin Aurore, Akalin Ayse, Verhaeghe Nick, Fobelets Maaike
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Language barriers cause miscommunication in healthcare, thereby threatening care quality and patient safety, including for official language minorities. Various technological solutions exist to minimise these barriers.
AIM: To map and summarise technological translation tools used in patient-provider communication in primary and/or emergency care.
METHOD: A rapid scoping review using adapted Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology combined with an environmental scan. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and grey literature via ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. The environmental scan included a structured Google search, documents from the DOcKTEuR project steering committee and relevant Belgian organisations' websites. Sources describing technological translation tools used during clinical encounters with patients experiencing language barriers in primary or emergency care, published in English, French, or Dutch from 2019 onward were included. Qualitative content analysis was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidance.
RESULTS: Twenty sources were included. Five categories were identified: video interpreter, telephone interpreter, translation application (AI), fixed-phrase healthcare translation application, and portable general translation device. Three domains of characteristics emerged: patient-provider interaction, operational feasibility, and ethical considerations. Video interpreter support provided high-quality interpretation and non-verbal communication however faced scheduling and technical challenges. Telephone interpreter support provided broad language coverage but lacked visual cues. AI-based applications enabled rapid multilingual support but raised concerns about accuracy. Fixed-phrase applications facilitated predefined healthcare communication, whereas portable devices offered flexible support but raised concerns about contextual appropriateness.
CONCLUSION: Technological translation tools vary in interaction quality, feasibility and ethical considerations. Evidence remains limited and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for robust evaluation of effectiveness, safety, and implementation in routine practice.
AIM: To map and summarise technological translation tools used in patient-provider communication in primary and/or emergency care.
METHOD: A rapid scoping review using adapted Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology combined with an environmental scan. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and grey literature via ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. The environmental scan included a structured Google search, documents from the DOcKTEuR project steering committee and relevant Belgian organisations' websites. Sources describing technological translation tools used during clinical encounters with patients experiencing language barriers in primary or emergency care, published in English, French, or Dutch from 2019 onward were included. Qualitative content analysis was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidance.
RESULTS: Twenty sources were included. Five categories were identified: video interpreter, telephone interpreter, translation application (AI), fixed-phrase healthcare translation application, and portable general translation device. Three domains of characteristics emerged: patient-provider interaction, operational feasibility, and ethical considerations. Video interpreter support provided high-quality interpretation and non-verbal communication however faced scheduling and technical challenges. Telephone interpreter support provided broad language coverage but lacked visual cues. AI-based applications enabled rapid multilingual support but raised concerns about accuracy. Fixed-phrase applications facilitated predefined healthcare communication, whereas portable devices offered flexible support but raised concerns about contextual appropriateness.
CONCLUSION: Technological translation tools vary in interaction quality, feasibility and ethical considerations. Evidence remains limited and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for robust evaluation of effectiveness, safety, and implementation in routine practice.