Does the requirement for an interpreter impact experience with telehealth modalities, acceptability and trust in telehealth? Results from a national survey including people requiring interpreter services
Victor Gallegos-Rejas, Jaimon T. Kelly, Centaine L. Snoswell, Helen M. Haydon, Annie Banbury, Emma Thomas, Taylor Major, Liam J Caffery, Anthony C Smith, Soraia de Camargo Catapan
Abstract
We aimed to assess if experience with telehealth modalities, acceptability and levels of trust in telehealth vary with the need for an interpreter using a cross-sectional survey of telehealth consumers in Australia. Non-parametric tests were used to compare the means and percentages between those who required an interpreter and those who did not. A total of N = 1,116 completed the survey; 5% ( n = 56) represented people needing an interpreter for telehealth services. Of those needing interpreters, 14.29% had experienced only phone consultations whereas 63.21% of those who did not need interpreters had experienced only phone consultations. Trust in telehealth with allied health professionals was significantly higher among people needing interpreters (mean 4.12 ± 1.02) than those with no interpreter required (mean 3.70 ± 1.30), p = 0.03. People requiring interpreters had non-significantly higher acceptability towards video consultation than those who did not (mean 3.60 ± 0.61 vs mean 3.51 ± 0.80, p = 0.42), similar to telephone consultations (mean 3.71 ± 0.95 vs mean 3.48 ± 0.79, p = 0.38). The need for interpreters does not appear to impact acceptability or trust in telehealth with doctors. However, experience with telehealth modalities and trust in telehealth with allied health varied significantly among groups. Increasing exposure to telehealth modalities, trust and acceptability is crucial to promote equitable access to telehealth.