Effect of Virtual Versus In Person Interpreting on Diabetes Outcomes in Non-English Language Preference Patients: A...

Area of Science:

• Medical Informatics
• Primary Care Medicine
• Health Services Research

Background:

• Effective communication is crucial for managing chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in patients with non-English language preference (NELP).
• The format of medical interpretation services (virtual vs. in-person) may influence patient outcomes and care delivery.
• Understanding the impact of interpreter modality is essential for optimizing care for diverse patient populations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the impact of virtual versus in-person interpreter formats on clinical outcomes for NELP patients with T2DM in primary care.
• To investigate differences in follow-up rates, HbA1c levels, and care plan complexity based on interpreter type.
• To evaluate the effectiveness of different interpreter modalities in supporting chronic disease management.

Main Methods:

• Retrospective chart review of 137 NELP patients with T2DM requiring interpreter services (February-June 2021).
• Analysis of continuity (follow-up visit rate, time to follow-up), quality (HbA1c change), and complexity (medication intervention complexity).
• Univariate and bivariate statistical analyses were used to assess associations between interpreter format and clinical outcomes.

Main Results:

• No statistically significant difference was observed in follow-up visit rates or time to follow-up between in-person and virtual interpreter groups.
• Patients using virtual interpreters showed a non-statistically significant decrease in HbA1c compared to those using in-person interpreters.
• Interpreter format was not significantly associated with the complexity of medication interventions.

Conclusions:

• Both virtual and in-person medical interpreters can effectively support the care of NELP patients with T2DM in primary care settings.
• The findings suggest that interpreter modality may not be a significant factor in key clinical outcomes for chronic disease management.
• Further qualitative and mixed-methods research is recommended to explore the nuances of interpreter formats across various clinical encounters.