Interpretation resources were the most frequently cited ideal resource with in-person interpreters preferred (72 and 62 percent)

Description #

When asked about "ideal" resources for managing LEP patients (n = 29), clinicians cited resources for interpretation most frequently (72%; n = 21), with over half (62%; n = 18) describing a specific need for in-person interpreters; a smaller proportion preferred video interpreters over phone translation (20%; n = 6) and some requested interpreters with specialty-specific training (14%; n = 4) (Figure 2D). Clinicians frame in-person and specialty-trained interpreters as the most-wanted intervention to improve communication and the accuracy of information conveyed.

"Resources for interpretation were raised most frequently (72%; n = 21) with over half (62%; n = 18) describing the need for in‐person interpreters (eg, “Ideally, all interpreters would be in person”)." (Govindan, 2025, p. 1235)

"Providers additionally requested translators with specialty‐specific knowledge or training to ensure that information from the provider was being accurately conveyed to the patient (14%; n = 4)." (Govindan, 2025, p. 1235)

Methods Context #

What? #ⓘ

The observable: clinician-named "ideal resources" coded from structured interviews, here the frequency with which providers named interpretation resources (and the modality/training preferred).

"When describing “ideal” resources for the management of LEP patients, respondents described approaches, which would improve patient‐provider communication during visits, improve the validity of diagnostic tests, and increase accessibility of information. (Figure 2D)" (Govindan, 2025, p. 1235)

How? #ⓘ

Structured Zoom interviews with an IRB-approved script, analyzed with directed content analysis guided by modified grounded theory; themes not mutually exclusive (one response could be coded to multiple themes).

"The transcribed responses were coded by 2 authors (A.S. and L.Z.) into initial phrase units, and subsequently categorized into domains, themes, and subthemes in an iterative fashion." (Govindan, 2025, p. 1233)

Who? #ⓘ

29 US hearing-health clinicians (16 otologists/neurotologists, 13 audiologists) across 4 regions; LEP patients averaged 34% of their practice (range 5%–90%).

"Interviewees reported that LEP patients comprised an average of 34% of their practice (5%‐90%)." (Govindan, 2025, p. 1233)

Other Notes #

A provider-stated resource preference (a perceived need), not a measured effect of interpreter provision. Notably, in-person interpreting is preferred over video and phone, with specialty-specific training valued for accuracy of information transfer.

Caveats #

• Small non-uniform sample skewed to Spanish-Chinese languages and away from the Midwest limits generalizability (Govindan 2025) The survey and interview samples each represent only a fraction of US providers serving LEP hearing-health patients, the geographic distribution is non-uniform (notably few Midwest respondents), and the LEP populations sampled are skewed toward Spanish and Chinese languages. The authors state these factors collectively limit the generalizability of the results — so the confidence, effort, and assessment-practice findings may not transfer to providers or LEP language groups outside the sampled distribution.
• Interview responses subject to recall bias personal bias and self-estimated surgical and LEP volumes (Govindan 2025) The interview-derived findings rest on clinician self-report and are subject to recall bias, the respondents' personal bias or experience with multiculturalism, and self-estimated surgical and LEP patient volumes. The reported frequencies of assessment practices and barriers therefore reflect provider recollection and perception rather than verified clinical behavior, which the authors flag explicitly.