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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2010-04, Vol.25 (4), p.345-350
Hauptverfasser: Locatis, Craig, Williamson, Deborah, Gould-Kabler, Carrie, Zone-Smith, Laurie, Detzler, Isabel, Roberson, Jason, Maisiak, Richard, Ackerman, Michael
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 &amp; 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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; 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