↓ Skip to main content

Low uptake of Aboriginal interpreters in healthcare: exploration of current use in Australia’s Northern Territory

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Low uptake of Aboriginal interpreters in healthcare: exploration of current use in Australia’s Northern Territory
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2689-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna P. Ralph, Anne Lowell, Jean Murphy, Tara Dias, Deborah Butler, Brian Spain, Jaquelyne T. Hughes, Lauren Campbell, Barbara Bauert, Claire Salter, Kylie Tune, Alan Cass

Abstract

In Australia's Northern Territory, most Aboriginal people primarily speak an Aboriginal language. Poor communication between healthcare providers and Aboriginal people results in adverse outcomes including death. This study aimed to identify remediable barriers to utilisation of Aboriginal Interpreter services at the Northern Territory's tertiary hospital, which currently manages over 25,000 Aboriginal inpatients annually. This is a multi-method study using key stakeholder discussions, medical file audit, bookings data from the Aboriginal Interpreter Service 2000-2015 and an online cross-sectional staff survey. The Donabedian framework was used to categorise findings into structure, process and outcome. Six key stakeholder meetings each with approximately 15 participants were conducted. A key structural barrier identified was lack of onsite interpreters. Interpreter bookings data revealed that only 7603 requests were made during the 15-year period, with completion of requests decreasing from 337/362 (93.1%) in 2003-4 to 649/831 (78.1%) in 2014-15 (p < 0.001). Non-completion was more common for minority languages (p < 0.001). Medical files of 103 Aboriginal inpatients were audited. Language was documented for 13/103 (12.6%). Up to 60/103 (58.3%) spoke an Aboriginal language primarily. Of 422 staff who participated in the survey, 18.0% had not received 'cultural competency' training; of those who did, 58/222 (26.2%) indicated it was insufficient. The Aboriginal Interpreter Service effectiveness was reported to be good by 209/368 (56.8%), but only 101/367 (27.5%) found it timely. Key process barriers identified by staff included booking complexities, time constraints, inadequate delivery of tools and training, and greater convenience of unofficial interpreters. We identified multiple structural and process barriers resulting in the outcomes of poor language documentation and low rates of interpreter bookings. Findings are now informing interventions to improve communication.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 27%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 22%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Psychology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 8 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,405,968
of 16,028,562 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,043
of 5,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,256
of 277,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,028,562 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
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 277,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them