Clinical trial NCT05966623: Assessing the Impact of Vidéo Remote Sign Language Interpreting in Healthcare
Official title: Assessing the Impact of Vidéo Remote Sign Language Interpreting in Healthcare: Linking Disability Studies With Empirical Challenges of Public Health Research
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
Phase: NA
Conditions: Deafness
Lead sponsor: University of Geneva, Switzerland
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: Universidad del Rosario
name: Hospital Universitario Mayor Mederi
name: Clinica Nuestra Senora de la Paz
First posted: 2023-07-28
Enrollment: 183
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: Arm Intervention Experimental VRI sign language interpretation Participants will be welcome from their entry point to the hospital, they will attend a general check-up with a GP or other services and be provided with VRI until they leave Participants will be provided with a Tablet of 14' inches with interrupted VRI in Colombian Sign Language. Professionally accredited Sign language interpreter. At the end of the hospital visit, they will complete a scale measuring Doctor-Patient-Communication

Experimental: primo control Participants get welcome at the entry point of the hospital, they will attend a general check-up with a GP or other services and they are not provided with by the study with VRI Participants get welcome at the entry point of the hospital, they are not provided with VRI. At the end of the hospital visit, they will complete a scale measuring Doctor-Patient-communication
Primary purpose: HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH

Brief summary: This is a randomise study that looks at what is the effectiveness of the VRI system in improving communication outcomes between Deaf patients and doctors versus the 'available standard of care of the usual communication tools, including informal interpretation, lip or note reading, using their mobile phones to contact a formal or informal interpreter, for Deaf patients aged 18 and older in Bogota Colombia

Detailed description: Background and Rationale:

In-person or VRI sign language interpretation is largely unavailable. In a scoping review, the researchers identified a knowledge gap regarding the quality of interpretation and training in sign language interpretation for health care. The researchers also found that this area is under-researched, and the evidence is scant. All available evidence came from high-income countries, which is particularly problematic given that most DHH persons live in low- and middle-income countries. Thus, the available literature shows that VRI may enable deaf users to overcome interpretation barriers and can potentially improve communication outcomes between them and health personnel within health care services. For VRI to be acceptable, sign language users require a VRI system supported by devices with large screens and a reliable internet connection, as well as qualified interpreters trained in medical interpretation. There is no clear data on the availability of VRI or in-person interpretation. Given the cost, VRI may be more available than in person. Available data tend to focus on assessing personal references of Deaf users in regards to interpretation, as well as interpreters' preferences and maximising recourses allocation.

Objective(S):

To assess the effectiveness of the VRI system in improving communication outcomes between Deaf patients and doctors Produce a VRI model addressing the challenges faced by Deaf people that will be tested, implemented, and sustained in Bogota, Colombia.

Explanation for choice of comparator

In-person or VRI sign language interpretation is largely unavailable. Thus, there is no clear data on the magnitude of the availability gap of VRI or in-person interpretation. In-person qualified sign language interpretation in the healthcare setting tends to be described as the ideal standard of service provision. Thus, it is largely unavailable even in HIC. The assumption is based upon minimal available evidence on the personal preferences of Deaf persons in the USA. There is no evidence that in-person interpretation is efficient in the context of weaker infrastructure, such as low sign language literacy rates across Deaf persons, lack of standard qualification of interpreters and lack of interpreters and sustainable financing in HIC. To my knowledge, there is no study assessing DPC while using sign language interpretation.

Given the cost, VRI may be more sustainable than in-person. Assessing the efficiency of VRI versus the standard of care would be d of more value, given that there is no other effective intervention to compare.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Uses Colombian Sign Language as the preferred language.
* Enough sensorimotor, cognitive and communication skills to communicate independently with health personnel

Exclusion Criteria:

* Does not communicate using sign language.
* Additional impairments which affect language development or the use of sign language.
* Refusal of the participant's representative(s) to participate in the study,
* Refusal of the participant's representative(s) to participate in a modality of the study,

Primary outcomes:
measure: Communication outcomes
timeFrame: 12 months
Secondary outcomes:
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Bogota
country: Colombia
facility: Clinica Nuestra Senora de la Paz
city: Bogotá
country: Colombia
facility: Hospital Universitario Mayor Mederi
Study officials:
References: