In this paper, we present a study comparing two mediums that can be used to communicate with allophone patients: a speech-enabled phraselator (BabelDr) and telephone interpreting. To identify the satisfaction provided by these mediums and their pros and cons, we conducted a crossover experiment where doctors and standardized patients completed anamneses and filled in surveys. Our findings suggest that telephone interpreting offers better overall satisfaction, but both mediums presented advantages. Consequently, we argue BabelDr and telephone interpreting can be complementary.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SHTI230272 | DOI Listing |
Stud Health Technol Inform
May 2023
Geneva University Hospitals, Department of Community Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
In this paper, we present a study comparing two mediums that can be used to communicate with allophone patients: a speech-enabled phraselator (BabelDr) and telephone interpreting. To identify the satisfaction provided by these mediums and their pros and cons, we conducted a crossover experiment where doctors and standardized patients completed anamneses and filled in surveys. Our findings suggest that telephone interpreting offers better overall satisfaction, but both mediums presented advantages.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!