Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 3, 2025
Author Spotlight: Investigating the Impact of Emotional Prosodies on Voice Recognition and Perception
Published on: August 9, 2024
Using Voice-to-Voice Machine Translation to Overcome Language Barriers in Clinical Communication: An Exploratory
Patricia Hudelson1,2, François Chappuis3,4
1Department of Primary Care Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. Patricia.Hudelson@hug.ch.
Background:
Machine translation (MT) apps are used informally by healthcare professionals in many settings, especially where interpreters are not readily available. As MT becomes more accurate and accessible, it may be tempting to use MT more widely. Institutions and healthcare professionals need guidance on when and how these applications might be used safely and how to manage potential risks to communication.
Objectives:
Explore factors that may hinder or facilitate communication when using voice-to-voice MT.
Design:
Health professionals volunteered to use a voice-to-voice MT app in routine encounters with their patients. Both health professionals and patients provided brief feedback on the experience, and a subset of consultations were observed.
Participants:
Doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals working in the Primary Care Division of the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland.
Main Measures:
Achievement of consultation goals; understanding and satisfaction; willingness to use MT again; difficulties encountered; factors affecting communication when using MT.
Key Results:
Fourteen health professionals conducted 60 consultations in 18 languages, using one of two voice-to-voice MT apps. Fifteen consultations were observed. Professionals achieved their consultation goals in 82.7% of consultations but were satisfied with MT communication in only 53.8%. Reasons for dissatisfaction included lack of practice with the app and difficulty understanding patients. Eighty-six percent of patients thought MT-facilitated communication was easy, and most participants were willing to use MT in the future (73% professionals, 84% patients). Experiences were more positive with European languages. Several conditions and speech practices were identified that appear to affect communication when using MT.
Conclusion:
While professional interpreters remain the gold standard for overcoming language barriers, voice-to-voice MT may be acceptable in some clinical situations. Healthcare institutions and professionals must be attentive to potential sources of MT errors and ensure the conditions necessary for safe and effective communication. More research in natural settings is needed to inform guidelines and training on using MT in clinical communication.
