↓ Skip to main content

Language interpretation conditions and boundaries in multilingual and multicultural emergency healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in BMC International Health and Human Rights, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 351)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 blog
1 tweeter


5 Dimensions

Readers on

22 Mendeley
Language interpretation conditions and boundaries in multilingual and multicultural emergency healthcare
Published in
BMC International Health and Human Rights, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12914-018-0157-3
Pubmed ID

Christina Lundin, Emina Hadziabdic, Katarina Hjelm


With an increasing migrant population globally the need to organize interpreting service arises in emergency healthcare to deliver equitable high-quality care. The aims of this study were to describe interpretation practices in multilingual emergency health service institutions and to explore the impact of the organizational and institutional context and possible consequences of different approaches to interpretation. No previous studies on these issues in multilingual emergency care have been found. A qualitative descriptive study was used. Forty-six healthcare professionals were purposively recruited from different organizational levels in ambulance service and psychiatric and somatic emergency care units. Data were collected between December 2014 and April 2015 through focus-group and individual interviews, and analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Organization of interpreters was based on patients' health status, context of emergency care, and access to interpreter service. Differences existed between workplaces regarding the use of interpreters: in somatic emergency care bilingual healthcare staff and family members were used to a limited extent; in psychiatric emergency care the norm was to use professional interpreters on the spot; and in ambulance service persons available at the time, e.g. family and friends were used. Similarities were found in: procuring a professional interpreter, mainly based on informal workplace routines, sometimes on formal guidelines and national laws, but knowledge of existing laws was limited; the ideal was a linguistically competent interpreter with a professional attitude, and organizational aspects such as appropriate time, technical and social environment; and wishes for development of better procedures for prompt access to professional interpreters at the workplace, regardless of organizational context, and education of interpreters and users. Use of interpreters was determined by health professionals, based on the patients' health status, striving to deliver as fast and individualized care as possible based on humanistic values. Defects in organizational routines need to be rectified and transcultural awareness is needed to achieve the aim of person-centered and equal healthcare. Clear formal guidelines for the use of interpreters in emergency healthcare need to be developed and it is important to fulfill health professionals' wishes for future development of prompt access to interpreters and education of interpreters and users.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 41%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 23%
Psychology 5 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 3 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,090,338 outputs
Outputs from BMC International Health and Human Rights
of 351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 270,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC International Health and Human Rights
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,090,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them