Premium
Communication pitfalls in interpreted genetic counseling sessions
Author(s) -
Ault Rachel,
Morales Ana,
Ault Russell,
Spitale Allison,
Martinez Glenn A.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of genetic counseling
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.867
H-Index - 52
eISSN - 1573-3599
pISSN - 1059-7700
DOI - 10.1002/jgc4.1132
Subject(s) - session (web analytics) , interpreter , conversation , active listening , genetic counseling , limited english proficiency , interpretation (philosophy) , psychology , conversation analysis , interpersonal communication , medical education , medicine , linguistics , social psychology , communication , health care , computer science , genetics , philosophy , biology , world wide web , economics , programming language , economic growth
The impact of language interpretation on interactive communication in genetic counseling sessions is not well studied. We sought to determine whether interpretation affects communication in genetic counseling sessions using communication analysis. With a sample of pregnant patients of advanced maternal age, we audiotaped, analyzed, and compared seven Spanish‐speaking patients with limited‐English proficiency to seven English‐speaking patients on length of session, English words spoken, and number of questions asked. An analysis of verbal listening cues, including back‐channels and questions asked was performed to evaluate the level of engagement by both provider and patient. Session length did not differ between groups ( p > 0.05), however, English‐speaking sessions involved significantly more words (mean: 4,798 vs. 2,524) exchanged over the course of the conversation than interpreter‐mediated sessions ( p < 0.001). The number of back‐channeling responses was significantly greater in English‐speaking compared to Spanish‐speaking sessions. We found the same information was covered, but there was less provider–patient interaction when the session was interpreter‐mediated. The patient asked fewer questions and the genetic counselor spoke in condensed ideas. Overall, our observations suggest diminished levels of interactive communication in interpreter‐mediated sessions. Our work highlights the need for further evaluation in how genetic counselors communicate during interpreter‐mediated sessions.