Ignite Creation Date:
2024-05-06 @ 11:31 AM
Last Modification Date:
2024-10-26 @ 12:46 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT03538860
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2021-10-14
First Post:
2018-03-01
Brief Title:
Validation of an Automated Online Language Interpreting Tool - Phase Two
Sponsor:
University of California Davis
Organization:
University of California Davis
Study Overview
Official Title:
A Clinical Trial to Validate an Automated Online Language Interpreting Tool With Hispanic Patients Who Have Limited English Proficiency - Phase Two
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2021-10
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
There is a pressing national need to provide higher-quality more effectively accessible language interpretation services to improve the health outcomes of Americans who have limited English proficiency LEP This project addresses a critical component of this problem The need to improve access to high quality mental health services for diverse populations by improving the flow of clinical work across care settings primary care and specialty care through the use of innovative online asynchronous methods of language interpretation and clinical communication The investigators are conducting a two phase study The first phase is completed and involved developing and testing the interpreting tool The second phase of the research is a clinical trial to compare two methods of cross-language psychiatric assessment
Detailed Description:
The investigators propose to develop and test a novel automated asynchronous interpretation tool The proposed project builds on previous research piloting the automated asynchronous interpretation tool This 5-year project will be conducted in two phases In Phase 1 the investigators iteratively evaluate and refine the automated asynchronous interpretation tool already developed in prior studies In Phase 2 the investigators evaluate this tool using a two-group randomized cross-over trial Investigators compare
Method A current gold standard of in-person real-time interpreting practice A Spanish-speaking patient is diagnostically assessed in-person by an English-speaking psychiatrist through a Spanish-speaking interpreter
Method B comparative practice - ATP A Spanish-speaking patient is interviewed in Spanish by a trained mental health interviewer The interview is recorded in real time translated into English using the automatic interpretation tool and adding sub-titles to the video file and sent to an English-speaking psychiatrist to asynchronously - that is at a later time - review the video and make a diagnosis
All patients will undergo evaluation by both methods Half of the patients will be randomized to be assessed by Method A first followed by Method B and half to be assessed by Method B first followed by Method A The specific aims of the study are
Aim 1 To iteratively evaluate and refine the automated asynchronous interpretation tool already developed in prior studies
Aim 2 To compare patient satisfaction of Method A vs Method B
Aim 3 To compare the diagnostic accuracy and psychiatrist inter-rater reliability of Method A vs Method B and demonstrate psychiatrist inter-rater reliability for Method B
Aim 4 To compare the interview and language interpretation quality and accuracy of Method A vs Method B
Method A current gold standard of in-person real-time interpreting practice A Spanish-speaking patient is diagnostically assessed in-person by an English-speaking psychiatrist through a Spanish-speaking interpreter
Method B comparative practice - ATP A Spanish-speaking patient is interviewed in Spanish by a trained mental health interviewer The interview is recorded in real time translated into English using the automatic interpretation tool and adding sub-titles to the video file and sent to an English-speaking psychiatrist to asynchronously - that is at a later time - review the video and make a diagnosis
All patients will undergo evaluation by both methods Half of the patients will be randomized to be assessed by Method A first followed by Method B and half to be assessed by Method B first followed by Method A The specific aims of the study are
Aim 1 To iteratively evaluate and refine the automated asynchronous interpretation tool already developed in prior studies
Aim 2 To compare patient satisfaction of Method A vs Method B
Aim 3 To compare the diagnostic accuracy and psychiatrist inter-rater reliability of Method A vs Method B and demonstrate psychiatrist inter-rater reliability for Method B
Aim 4 To compare the interview and language interpretation quality and accuracy of Method A vs Method B
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
None
Secondary IDs
| Secondary ID | Type | Domain | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| R01HS024949 | AHRQ | None | httpsreporternihgovquickSearchR01HS024949 |