Family members continue to be used as interpreters in medical consultations despite the well-known risks. This paper examines participant perceptions of this practice in three New Zealand clinics chosen for their frequent use of interpreters and their skill in using them. It is based on a detailed study of 17 video-recorded interpreted consultations and 48 post-consultation interviews with participants (5 doctors, 16 patients and 12 interpreters, including 6 family members). All participants expressed satisfaction with the communication. Analysis of the interviews explored what participants liked or valued about family member interpreters (FMIs). Key themes were the FMIs' personal relationship and knowledge, patient comfort, trust, cultural norms, time efficiency and continued help outside the consultation. General practitioners (GPs) expressed awareness of potential risks and how to manage them, in contrast to patients and FMIs. Although the use of professional interpreters needs to be strongly promoted, a well-informed decision to use a family member is appropriate in some situations. GPs need to be well trained in how to assess and manage the risks. Rather than striving for 'best practice' (i.e. universal use of professional interpreters), it is better to aim for 'good practice' where a considered judgement is made about each situation on an individual basis.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2022.
All research outputs
#17,847,395
of 27,773,453 outputs
Outputs from Australian Journal of Primary Health
#422
of 652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,315
of 312,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Journal of Primary Health
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,773,453 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
