Language DiscordanceNCT01041014
Cost Effectiveness of Language Services in Hospital Emergency Departments (EDs)
A study testing Professional medical interpreter in people with Language Discordance, run by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. at 2 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Numerous studies suggest that the use of in-person, professionally trained medical interpreters can reduce health care costs associated with diagnosing and treating patients with limited English proficiency. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Language Discordance
- What is being tested?
- Professional medical interpreter
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 447 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- Oct 2008to Jan 2010
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- limited English proficient (LEP) Spanish-speaking patients
- adults aged 18 or older
- LEP parents of children seen in emergency departments
Who cannot join
- cognitively impaired, comatose, or traumatized patients
- healthy volunteers
- prisoners
- hospital employees
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
United States2 sites
CentraState Healthcare System
Freehold, New Jersey, 07728
Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital
New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08901
About this study
Official title: Cost Effectiveness of Language Services in Hospital Emergency Departments
Numerous studies suggest that the use of in-person, professionally trained medical interpreters can reduce health care costs associated with diagnosing and treating patients with limited English proficiency. However, few studies have specifically addressed the question of the cost-effectiveness of language services in health care settings. This study used a randomized controlled study design to compare the cost-effectiveness of using professional interpreters with Spanish-speaking patients seen in hospital emergency departments (EDs) versus using the usual language services available to these patients. The main goal of the study was to estimate the effect that professional interpreters have on resource utilization and patient/provider satisfaction in the ED compared to the language services usually offered in these settings. Our hypothesis was that use of trained interpreters would lead to more cost-effective provision of ED services.
- Conditions
- Language Discordance
- Being tested
- Professional medical interpreter
- Keywords
- Limited English proficiency, Cost-effectiveness, Emergency Departments, Language Discordance, Satisfaction, Limited English proficient patients, Spanish-speaking patients
- Medical subject headings
- Emergencies, Personal Satisfaction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Professional medical interpreterBehavioural
All treatment interpreters were certified bilingual in Spanish and English and had completed (1) at least 40 hours of training in medical terminology, ethics, patient privacy, and basic interpreting skills; and (2) an online course in protection of human subjects.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Professional medical interpreter | Experimental | Limited English proficient Spanish-speaking patients seen in the treatment arm were provided with the services of a professionally-trained medical interpreter to facilitate communication between the patient and emergency department staff Receives: Behavioral: Professional medical interpreter |
| Control, Usual Language Services | No intervention | Patients randomized to the control arm receive the services of the emergency departments' usual language services (i.e., a telephone language line or ad hoc interpreters). |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Cost-effectiveness of in-person interpreters versus other language services
Measured: June 2009
Secondary outcomes (1)
Satisfaction with ability to communicate
Measured: June 2009
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Dec 2009 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2008
- Primary completionApr 2009
- Study completionJan 2010
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Language DiscordanceStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 447 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Ann D Bagchi, Ph.D., Study director, Mathematica Policy ResearchStacy Dale, MPA, Principal investigator, Mathematica Policy ResearchRobert Eisenstein, MD, Principal investigator, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01041014
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 55879RWJF
- Status last verified
- Dec 2009
- First submitted
- 28 Dec 2009
- Last updated
- 1 Oct 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Oct 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Cost Effectiveness of Language Services in Hospital Emergency Departments
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01041014
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 55879RWJF
- Conditions
- Language Discordance
- Keywords
- Limited English proficiency, Cost-effectiveness, Emergency Departments, Language Discordance, Satisfaction, Limited English proficient patients, Spanish-speaking patients
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 447 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- Study start
- Oct 2008
- Primary completion
- Apr 2009 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jan 2010 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Dec 2009 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Numerous studies suggest that the use of in-person, professionally trained medical interpreters can reduce health care costs associated with diagnosing and treating patients with limited English proficiency. However, few studies have specifically addressed the question of the cost-effectiveness of language services in health care settings. This study used a randomized controlled study design to compare the cost-effectiveness of using professional interpreters with Spanish-speaking patients seen in hospital emergency departments (EDs) versus using the usual language services available to these patients. The main goal of the study was to estimate the effect that professional interpreters have on resource utilization and patient/provider satisfaction in the ED compared to the language services usually offered in these settings. Our hypothesis was that use of trained interpreters would lead to more cost-effective provision of ED services.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Professional medical interpreter | Experimental | Behavioral: Professional medical interpreterLimited English proficient Spanish-speaking patients seen in the treatment arm were provided with the services of a professionally-trained medical interpreter to facilitate communication between the patient and emergency department staff |
| Control, Usual Language Services | No intervention | –Patients randomized to the control arm receive the services of the emergency departments' usual language services (i.e., a telephone language line or ad hoc interpreters). |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- limited English proficient (LEP) Spanish-speaking patients
- adults aged 18 or older
- LEP parents of children seen in emergency departments
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- cognitively impaired, comatose, or traumatized patients
- healthy volunteers
- prisoners
- hospital employees
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Professional medical interpreterAll treatment interpreters were certified bilingual in Spanish and English and had completed (1) at least 40 hours of training in medical terminology, ethics, patient privacy, and basic interpreting skills; and (2) an online course in protection of human subjects. | Behavioural | Professional medical interpreter |
Primary outcome
Cost-effectiveness of in-person interpreters versus other language services
Time frame: June 2009
1 secondary outcome
Satisfaction with ability to communicate
Time frame: June 2009
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Oct 2015.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Ann D Bagchi, Ph.D. study director
Mathematica Policy Research
Stacy Dale, MPA principal investigator
Mathematica Policy Research
Robert Eisenstein, MD principal investigator
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Professional medical interpreter in people with Language Discordance, run by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. at 2 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Oct 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Cost-effectiveness of in-person interpreters versus other language services (time frame: June 2009). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Oct 2015.