Video Remote Sign Language Interpreting and Health Communication for Deaf Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Temas
Detalles
Importance Current interpretation services for Deaf patients who use sign language are often ineffective or unacceptable. In-person interpretation is frequently unavailable, and while video remote interpreting (VRI) remains underused, its scalability may be a solution given interpreter shortages and cost barriers. Existing research focuses on user and interpreter preferences, leaving a critical gap in understanding how interpretation formats affect communication quality.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of VRI in improving communication outcomes between Deaf patients and physicians compared with usual communication tools, such as self-arranging interpretation, lip-reading, note-taking, and the use of images.
Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Colombia at a public hospital from August 2023 to October 2024, involving Deaf adults who use Colombian Sign Language as their primary language. Participants were randomly assigned to either the control or intervention group. The data were analyzed between January and May 2025.
Interventions Patients were divided into 2 groups: an intervention group that received a medical appointment via VRI and a control group that received one via the current standard of communication. Both the Deaf participants and the health care professionals were blinded to the allocation.
Main Outcomes and Measures An assessment of communication using the Doctor-Patient Communication scale.
Results Data were collected from 210 Deaf participants, including 123 (58.6%) women and 87 (41.4%) men, with a mean (SD) age of 42 (13) years (range, 18-84 years). Overall, 108 participants (51.4%) reported using VRI. The intervention revealed that having VRI did not always result in improved communication between Deaf individuals and physicians. While those using VRI were more likely to report positive outcomes in certain areas, such as being encouraged to express themselves (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.13-3.18; P = .02), there was no difference in other areas, such as understanding the doctor (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.79-2.23; P = .28).
Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of VRI in the health care context, some aspects of clinical communication were improved, but others were not. This suggests that critical preconditions have to be met for this technology to achieve its intended impact.