Table 3.
Satisfaction with Interpretation, by Interpreting Method
| Intent-to-treat Analysis (by randomization mode) | Actual Interpreting Method Received | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U&C | RSMI | U&C Trained | RSMI | |
| n | 364 | 371 | 165 | 175 |
| Did your interpreter listen to you carefully? | ||||
| Yes | 192 (99) | 214 (98) | 149 (99) | 158 (99) |
| How would you rate your interpreter in treating you with respect? | ||||
| Very well | 99 (51) | 129 (58) | 71 (48) | 88 (54) |
| How well do you think your interpreter understood you? | ||||
| Very well | 95 (48) | 111 (50) | 70 (45) | 73 (45) |
| How well do you think your interpreter interpreted your visit with the doctor? | ||||
| Very Well | 98 (50) | 124 (56) | 76 (50) | 90 (55) |
| How well do you think this method of interpretation protected your privacy? | ||||
| Very Well | 73 (38) | 104 (51)* | 52 (35) | 74 (49)† |
| Would you recommend the interpreter to a friend? | ||||
| Yes | 175 (97) | 200 (97) | 136 (96) | 147 (99) |
| Would you recommend this method of interpretation to a friend? | ||||
| Yes | 178 (93) | 204 (96) | 136 (94) | 151 (97) |
| Composite satisfaction with interpreter score | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 0.462 (0.368) | 0.528 (0.393)* | 0.449 (0.365) | 0.502 (0.395) |
Denominators for percentages exclude missing values and those for whom the response was not applicable (i.e., those who did not receive interpreter services).
*Intent-to-treat analysis, significant difference between RSMI and U&C at a level of p < 0.05.
†Actual interpreting method received, significant differences between RSMI and U&C trained at a level of p < 0.05.