Comparing In-Person, Video, and Telephonic Medical Interpretation
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Using trained interpreters to provide medical interpretation services is superior to services provided on an ad hoc basis, but little is known about the effectiveness of providing their services remotely, especially using video. OBJECTIVE To compare remote medical interpretation...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2010-04, Vol.25 (4), p.345-350 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 350 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 345 |
container_title | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Locatis, Craig Williamson, Deborah Gould-Kabler, Carrie Zone-Smith, Laurie Detzler, Isabel Roberson, Jason Maisiak, Richard Ackerman, Michael |
description | ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Using trained interpreters to provide medical interpretation services is superior to services provided on an ad hoc basis, but little is known about the effectiveness of providing their services remotely, especially using video.
OBJECTIVE
To compare remote medical interpretation services by trained interpreters via telephone and videoconference to those provided in-person.
DESIGN
Quasi-randomized control study.
PARTICIPANTS
Two hundred and forty-one Spanish speaking patient volunteers, twenty-four health providers, and seven interpreters.
APPROACH
Patients, providers and interpreters each independently completed scales evaluating the quality of clinical encounters and, optionally, made free text comments. Interviews were conducted with 23 of the providers, the seven interpreters, and a subset of 30 patients. Time data were collected.
RESULTS
Encounters with in-person interpretation were rated significantly higher by providers and interpreters, while patients rated all methods the same. There were no significant differences in provider and interpreter ratings of remote methods. Provider and interpreter comments on scales and interview data support the higher in-person ratings, but they also showed a distinct preference for video over the phone. Phone interviews were significantly shorter than in-person.
DISCUSSION
Patients rated interpretation services highly no matter how they were provided but experienced only the method employed at the time of the encounter. Providers and interpreters were exposed to all three methods, were more critical of remote methods, and preferred videoconferencing to the telephone as a remote method. The significantly shorter phone interviews raise questions about the prospects of miscommunication in telephonic interpretation, given the absence of a visual channel, but other factors might have affected time results. Since the patient population studied was Hispanic and predominantly female care must be taken in generalizing these results to other populations. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11606-009-1236-x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2842540</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>733792233</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-8e8bbfe55d4f28fb59ed6dbc7ae6b08f227310b2027f7f231402e2c4df4034d03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1v1DAQhi1ERZfCD-CCIiTEpSnjsRM7l0rVio9KreBQuFpOMm5dZe1gZ1H59yTapYVKnHzwM-98PIy94nDCAdT7zHkNdQnQlBxFXd49YSteYVVy2ainbAVay1IrIQ_Z85xvAbhA1M_YIQIH1fB6xc7WcTPa5MN1cR7Kr5RyDMfFd99TPC5s6IsrGmi8icF3xSX1vrPDDE6UxkSTnXwML9iBs0Oml_v3iH37-OFq_bm8-PLpfH12UXZVLadSk25bR1XVS4fatVVDfd23nbJUt6AdohIcWgRUTjkUXAISdrJ3EoTsQRyx013uuG031HcUpmQHMya_semXidabf3-CvzHX8adBLbGSS8C7fUCKP7aUJ7PxuaNhsIHiNhslhGoQhZjJN4_I27hNYd7OaMWx5lLyGeI7qEsx50TufhQOZtFjdnrMrMcseszdXPP67x3uK_74mIG3e8Dm-dQu2dD5_MBhraFRS3PccXlc3FF6mPD_3X8DDOan_Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>871261441</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing In-Person, Video, and Telephonic Medical Interpretation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Locatis, Craig ; Williamson, Deborah ; Gould-Kabler, Carrie ; Zone-Smith, Laurie ; Detzler, Isabel ; Roberson, Jason ; Maisiak, Richard ; Ackerman, Michael</creator><creatorcontrib>Locatis, Craig ; Williamson, Deborah ; Gould-Kabler, Carrie ; Zone-Smith, Laurie ; Detzler, Isabel ; Roberson, Jason ; Maisiak, Richard ; Ackerman, Michael</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Using trained interpreters to provide medical interpretation services is superior to services provided on an ad hoc basis, but little is known about the effectiveness of providing their services remotely, especially using video.
OBJECTIVE
To compare remote medical interpretation services by trained interpreters via telephone and videoconference to those provided in-person.
DESIGN
Quasi-randomized control study.
PARTICIPANTS
Two hundred and forty-one Spanish speaking patient volunteers, twenty-four health providers, and seven interpreters.
APPROACH
Patients, providers and interpreters each independently completed scales evaluating the quality of clinical encounters and, optionally, made free text comments. Interviews were conducted with 23 of the providers, the seven interpreters, and a subset of 30 patients. Time data were collected.
RESULTS
Encounters with in-person interpretation were rated significantly higher by providers and interpreters, while patients rated all methods the same. There were no significant differences in provider and interpreter ratings of remote methods. Provider and interpreter comments on scales and interview data support the higher in-person ratings, but they also showed a distinct preference for video over the phone. Phone interviews were significantly shorter than in-person.
DISCUSSION
Patients rated interpretation services highly no matter how they were provided but experienced only the method employed at the time of the encounter. Providers and interpreters were exposed to all three methods, were more critical of remote methods, and preferred videoconferencing to the telephone as a remote method. The significantly shorter phone interviews raise questions about the prospects of miscommunication in telephonic interpretation, given the absence of a visual channel, but other factors might have affected time results. Since the patient population studied was Hispanic and predominantly female care must be taken in generalizing these results to other populations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0884-8734</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-1497</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11606-009-1236-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20107916</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Analysis of Variance ; Biological and medical sciences ; Communication ; Comparative studies ; Female ; General aspects ; Health care industry ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Interviews as Topic ; Language ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Original ; Original Article ; Patient Satisfaction ; Physician-Patient Relations ; Referral and Consultation ; Remote Consultation ; South Carolina ; Statistics as Topic ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Telephone ; Telephones ; Translations ; Video teleconferencing ; Waiting Lists ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2010-04, Vol.25 (4), p.345-350</ispartof><rights>Society of General Internal Medicine 2010</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-8e8bbfe55d4f28fb59ed6dbc7ae6b08f227310b2027f7f231402e2c4df4034d03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-8e8bbfe55d4f28fb59ed6dbc7ae6b08f227310b2027f7f231402e2c4df4034d03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842540/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842540/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=22680971$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20107916$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Locatis, Craig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gould-Kabler, Carrie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zone-Smith, Laurie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Detzler, Isabel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberson, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maisiak, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ackerman, Michael</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing In-Person, Video, and Telephonic Medical Interpretation</title><title>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</title><addtitle>J GEN INTERN MED</addtitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Using trained interpreters to provide medical interpretation services is superior to services provided on an ad hoc basis, but little is known about the effectiveness of providing their services remotely, especially using video.
OBJECTIVE
To compare remote medical interpretation services by trained interpreters via telephone and videoconference to those provided in-person.
DESIGN
Quasi-randomized control study.
PARTICIPANTS
Two hundred and forty-one Spanish speaking patient volunteers, twenty-four health providers, and seven interpreters.
APPROACH
Patients, providers and interpreters each independently completed scales evaluating the quality of clinical encounters and, optionally, made free text comments. Interviews were conducted with 23 of the providers, the seven interpreters, and a subset of 30 patients. Time data were collected.
RESULTS
Encounters with in-person interpretation were rated significantly higher by providers and interpreters, while patients rated all methods the same. There were no significant differences in provider and interpreter ratings of remote methods. Provider and interpreter comments on scales and interview data support the higher in-person ratings, but they also showed a distinct preference for video over the phone. Phone interviews were significantly shorter than in-person.
DISCUSSION
Patients rated interpretation services highly no matter how they were provided but experienced only the method employed at the time of the encounter. Providers and interpreters were exposed to all three methods, were more critical of remote methods, and preferred videoconferencing to the telephone as a remote method. The significantly shorter phone interviews raise questions about the prospects of miscommunication in telephonic interpretation, given the absence of a visual channel, but other factors might have affected time results. Since the patient population studied was Hispanic and predominantly female care must be taken in generalizing these results to other populations.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interviews as Topic</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Physician-Patient Relations</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation</subject><subject>Remote Consultation</subject><subject>South Carolina</subject><subject>Statistics as Topic</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Telephone</subject><subject>Telephones</subject><subject>Translations</subject><subject>Video teleconferencing</subject><subject>Waiting Lists</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0884-8734</issn><issn>1525-1497</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1v1DAQhi1ERZfCD-CCIiTEpSnjsRM7l0rVio9KreBQuFpOMm5dZe1gZ1H59yTapYVKnHzwM-98PIy94nDCAdT7zHkNdQnQlBxFXd49YSteYVVy2ainbAVay1IrIQ_Z85xvAbhA1M_YIQIH1fB6xc7WcTPa5MN1cR7Kr5RyDMfFd99TPC5s6IsrGmi8icF3xSX1vrPDDE6UxkSTnXwML9iBs0Oml_v3iH37-OFq_bm8-PLpfH12UXZVLadSk25bR1XVS4fatVVDfd23nbJUt6AdohIcWgRUTjkUXAISdrJ3EoTsQRyx013uuG031HcUpmQHMya_semXidabf3-CvzHX8adBLbGSS8C7fUCKP7aUJ7PxuaNhsIHiNhslhGoQhZjJN4_I27hNYd7OaMWx5lLyGeI7qEsx50TufhQOZtFjdnrMrMcseszdXPP67x3uK_74mIG3e8Dm-dQu2dD5_MBhraFRS3PccXlc3FF6mPD_3X8DDOan_Q</recordid><startdate>20100401</startdate><enddate>20100401</enddate><creator>Locatis, Craig</creator><creator>Williamson, Deborah</creator><creator>Gould-Kabler, Carrie</creator><creator>Zone-Smith, Laurie</creator><creator>Detzler, Isabel</creator><creator>Roberson, Jason</creator><creator>Maisiak, Richard</creator><creator>Ackerman, Michael</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100401</creationdate><title>Comparing In-Person, Video, and Telephonic Medical Interpretation</title><author>Locatis, Craig ; Williamson, Deborah ; Gould-Kabler, Carrie ; Zone-Smith, Laurie ; Detzler, Isabel ; Roberson, Jason ; Maisiak, Richard ; Ackerman, Michael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-8e8bbfe55d4f28fb59ed6dbc7ae6b08f227310b2027f7f231402e2c4df4034d03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interviews as Topic</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Physician-Patient Relations</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation</topic><topic>Remote Consultation</topic><topic>South Carolina</topic><topic>Statistics as Topic</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Telephone</topic><topic>Telephones</topic><topic>Translations</topic><topic>Video teleconferencing</topic><topic>Waiting Lists</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Locatis, Craig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gould-Kabler, Carrie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zone-Smith, Laurie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Detzler, Isabel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberson, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maisiak, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ackerman, Michael</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Locatis, Craig</au><au>Williamson, Deborah</au><au>Gould-Kabler, Carrie</au><au>Zone-Smith, Laurie</au><au>Detzler, Isabel</au><au>Roberson, Jason</au><au>Maisiak, Richard</au><au>Ackerman, Michael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing In-Person, Video, and Telephonic Medical Interpretation</atitle><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle><stitle>J GEN INTERN MED</stitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><date>2010-04-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>345</spage><epage>350</epage><pages>345-350</pages><issn>0884-8734</issn><eissn>1525-1497</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Using trained interpreters to provide medical interpretation services is superior to services provided on an ad hoc basis, but little is known about the effectiveness of providing their services remotely, especially using video.
OBJECTIVE
To compare remote medical interpretation services by trained interpreters via telephone and videoconference to those provided in-person.
DESIGN
Quasi-randomized control study.
PARTICIPANTS
Two hundred and forty-one Spanish speaking patient volunteers, twenty-four health providers, and seven interpreters.
APPROACH
Patients, providers and interpreters each independently completed scales evaluating the quality of clinical encounters and, optionally, made free text comments. Interviews were conducted with 23 of the providers, the seven interpreters, and a subset of 30 patients. Time data were collected.
RESULTS
Encounters with in-person interpretation were rated significantly higher by providers and interpreters, while patients rated all methods the same. There were no significant differences in provider and interpreter ratings of remote methods. Provider and interpreter comments on scales and interview data support the higher in-person ratings, but they also showed a distinct preference for video over the phone. Phone interviews were significantly shorter than in-person.
DISCUSSION
Patients rated interpretation services highly no matter how they were provided but experienced only the method employed at the time of the encounter. Providers and interpreters were exposed to all three methods, were more critical of remote methods, and preferred videoconferencing to the telephone as a remote method. The significantly shorter phone interviews raise questions about the prospects of miscommunication in telephonic interpretation, given the absence of a visual channel, but other factors might have affected time results. Since the patient population studied was Hispanic and predominantly female care must be taken in generalizing these results to other populations.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>20107916</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11606-009-1236-x</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0884-8734 |
ispartof | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2010-04, Vol.25 (4), p.345-350 |
issn | 0884-8734 1525-1497 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2842540 |
source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Analysis of Variance Biological and medical sciences Communication Comparative studies Female General aspects Health care industry Humans Internal Medicine Interviews as Topic Language Male Medical sciences Medicine Medicine & Public Health Original Original Article Patient Satisfaction Physician-Patient Relations Referral and Consultation Remote Consultation South Carolina Statistics as Topic Surveys and Questionnaires Telephone Telephones Translations Video teleconferencing Waiting Lists Young Adult |
title | Comparing In-Person, Video, and Telephonic Medical Interpretation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T03%3A13%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20In-Person,%20Video,%20and%20Telephonic%20Medical%20Interpretation&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20general%20internal%20medicine%20:%20JGIM&rft.au=Locatis,%20Craig&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=345&rft.epage=350&rft.pages=345-350&rft.issn=0884-8734&rft.eissn=1525-1497&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11606-009-1236-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E733792233%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=871261441&rft_id=info:pmid/20107916&rfr_iscdi=true |