Table 4:
Provider Ratings of Professional Interpretation Modalities
| Telephone Arm (n = 58) | Video Arm (n = 66) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction | |||
| Very unsatisfied | 13.8% (8/58) | 0 | <.001 |
| Somewhat unsatisfied | 22.4% (13/58) | 15.2% (10/66) | |
| Somewhat satisfied | 60.3% (35/58) | 43.9% (29/66) | |
| Very satisfied | 3.5% (2/58) | 40.9% (27/66) | |
| Effectiveness of communication | |||
| Very ineffective | 5.2% (3/58) | 0 | .002 |
| Somewhat ineffective | 24.1% (14/58) | 7.7% (5/65) | |
| Somewhat effective | 50% (29/58) | 46.2% (30/65) | |
| Very effective | 20.7% (12/58) | 46.2% (30/65) | |
| Perceived skill of interpreter | |||
| Highly unskilled | 1.7% (1/58) | 0 | .30 |
| Somewhat unskilled | 1.7% (1/58) | 3.0% (2/66) | |
| Somewhat skilled | 43.1% (25/58) | 30.3% (20/66) | |
| Highly skilled | 53.5% (31/58) | 66.7% (44/66) | |
| Perceived wait time to interpretation | |||
| Very long | 3.5% (2/58) | 1.5% (1/65) | .02 |
| Long | 15.5% (9/58) | 1.5% (1/65) | |
| Medium | 37.9% (22/58) | 35.4% (23/65) | |
| Short | 32.8% (19/58) | 35.4% (23/65) | |
| Very short | 10.3% (6/58) | 26.2% (17/65) | |