TOPLINE: 

Patients with deafness reported improvements in some aspects of communication with their doctors when an interpreter of sign language joined the in-person visit live via video. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized clinical trial to assess whether an intervention involving a sign language interpreter via video improved communication between patients with deafness and their physicians.
• The intervention involved a live interpreter via Zoom who mediated communication during in-person routine preventive visits over a 14-month period starting in August 2023.
• A total of 210 adults (mean age, 42 years; 58.6% women) at a public hospital in Bogotá, Colombia were included; all patients used Colombian Sign Language.
• Patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n = 108) using an interpreter or a control group (n = 102) not using one. The control group relied on standard communication methods such as self-arranging interpretation, note-taking, lip-reading, or using images.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported communication quality, measured immediately after the visit using the 13-item Doctor-Patient Communication scale assessing aspects such as listening, understanding, clarity, empathy, completeness of information, and involvement in decision-making.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to report being encouraged to express themselves (odds ratio [OR], 1.90; P = .02) and being involved in decision-making (OR, 2.49; P < .001).
• Patients in the intervention group were more likely to report receiving thorough physical examinations (OR, 2.19; P = .01) and feeling that they were given complete information during the visit (OR, 1.90; P = .02) than the control group.
• The groups did not differ significantly in ratings of listening, patience, clarity of explanations, reassurance, understanding, or whether their concerns were addressed.
• Ratings of empathy, explanation of treatment advantages/disadvantages, and confidence in the doctor were higher in the intervention group, but differences in ratings between the groups did not reach statistical significance. 

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that some preconditions — including literacy levels among Deaf individuals; training, oversight, and quality assurance mechanisms for interpreters; and addressing infrastructural barriers such as access to devices and reliable internet connectivity — must be met for VRI [video remote interpreting] technology to achieve its intended impact,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Minerva Rivas Velarde, PhD, MSc, of University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western in Geneva, Switzerland. It was published online February 4 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study relied on data reported by patients, which may have introduced bias or imprecision. Researchers measured communication only from the perspective of patients and not physicians. Complete blinding was not feasible because of the nature of the intervention.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Swiss National Science Foundation. The authors did not report any relevant financial relationships.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.