Informal interpreting in general practice: Interpreters’ roles related to trust and control

In order to complement previous qualitative research and to provide explanations for contradictory findings, we have conducted a survey-study among Turkish-Dutch migrant patients (n=91), their family interpreters (n=91) and GP s (n=26) directly before and after a GP consultation. First, we compared the expectations of the three parties to seven roles of the family interpreter using Habermas’ Lifeworld versus System theory: ‘conduit,’ ‘institutional gatekeeper’ (System roles); and ‘advocate,’ ‘emotional support’, ‘information source,’ ‘cultural informant’ and ‘counselor’ (Lifeworld roles) (Mishler 1984). Second, patients’ expectations of the family interpreters’ role were linked to their perceived control of the consultation and trust in family interpreters. Results show a discrepancy between, on the one hand, the roles expected by GP s, who mainly expected the system role of ‘conduit,’ and, on the other hand, family interpreters and patients, who mainly expected lifeworld agent roles from the family interpreter. Moreover, patients’ expectations of the lifeworld agent roles (especially the ‘emotional support’ role) were positively related to patients’ increased perceived control and trust in the family interpreters. Thus, our study indicates that patients do not expect a neutral conduit role from family interpreters, but rather appreciate interpreters who provide emotional support, extra information to the GP, cultural brokering and advocacy

Informal interpreting in general practice: Interpreters’ roles related to trust and control

In order to complement previous qualitative research and to provide explanations for contradictory findings, we have conducted a survey-study among Turkish-Dutch migrant patients (n=91), their family interpreters (n=91) and GP s (n=26) directly before and after a GP consultation. First, we compared the expectations of the three parties to seven roles of the family interpreter using Habermas’ Lifeworld versus System theory: ‘conduit,’ ‘institutional gatekeeper’ (System roles); and ‘advocate,’ ‘emotional support’, ‘information source,’ ‘cultural informant’ and ‘counselor’ (Lifeworld roles) (Mishler 1984). Second, patients’ expectations of the family interpreters’ role were linked to their perceived control of the consultation and trust in family interpreters. Results show a discrepancy between, on the one hand, the roles expected by GP s, who mainly expected the system role of ‘conduit,’ and, on the other hand, family interpreters and patients, who mainly expected lifeworld agent roles from the family interpreter. Moreover, patients’ expectations of the lifeworld agent roles (especially the ‘emotional support’ role) were positively related to patients’ increased perceived control and trust in the family interpreters. Thus, our study indicates that patients do not expect a neutral conduit role from family interpreters, but rather appreciate interpreters who provide emotional support, extra information to the GP, cultural brokering and advocacy