South Asian uptake and experience of professional interpreting services in primary; a national cross-sectional study

Problem

When patients and healthcare professionals do not share a common language, the use of professional interpreters becomes fundamental to communication, as well as avoiding exacerbation of inequalities in healthcare access and outcomes. Primary care consultations are often the first line of contact, and require a high degree of language proficiency. Prior research highlights the benefits to patients of using professional interpreters in terms of experience and outcomes however use is poor, and little is understood about their quality and impact. Addressing these concerns, this study explored the uptake and experience of professional interpreting services in primary care (general practice) among South Asian communities in England.

Approach

Through a national cross-sectional survey of participants from Bangladeshi (n=213), Indian (n=200), and Pakistani (n=196) backgrounds we examined a) the barriers and facilitators to uptake of GP professional interpreting services; and b) the association between healthcare access, patient characteristics, self-reported health, and uptake. The fieldwork took place in four regions in England between January and June 2023. Trained multilingual researchers used their personal networks to recruit participants with limited or no English proficiency using nonprobability convenience/snowball sampling. The researchers translated the survey into the language of choice of the participant. The survey included items exploring the prior use of and experience with GP professional interpreting services, as well as questions on barriers to access; experience of other forms of language support (e.g. family members acting as interpreters); self-rated health; and socio-demographics. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify correlates with uptake.

Findings

Just under two-thirds of participants (63%) reported having previously used the professional interpreting services provided by their GP. Face-to-face interpreting was the most common modality, followed by telephone and video interpreting. Several key influences on uptake were identified in multivariable analysis including ethnic origin, education; region; number of primary care visit within the last 12 months; participants being told about professional interpreting services; and participants being given a choice over the language support service offered. Those who had used a professional interpreter offered by their GP within the last 12 months reported moderate satisfaction with the service. We identified several opportunities for improvement including interpreters/doctors’ understanding of health concerns; patients’ understanding of information from doctors; and the extent to which patients felt comfortable using the professional interpreters provided by their GP surgery to communicate with healthcare professionals.

Consequences

Our approach provided novel data on professional interpreting service use and evidence about the factors that may play a role in patient uptake and experience. Understanding the experience of professional interpreting services from a patient perspective is vital in optimising how interpreting services are offered and used to ensure equitable healthcare access.