OPI “is perceived to have a more negative impact on overall performance than [VRI], which receives more positive evaluations regarding source text comprehension, target text production, rapport between interlocutors, concentration, stress, and fatigue,” wrote authors Dr. Wei Zhang, Dr. Elena Davitti, and Professor Savine Braun.
Their survey of 47 experienced healthcare interpreters was part of a larger study examining the current state of research on remote medical interpreting and was intended to fill in gaps in the literature, which rarely touches on user satisfaction with different modalities.
The researchers also aimed to build a general understanding of current practices in effect for most languages and medical specialties. Participants were located in 15 countries (with some working in multiple countries) and worked in 28 languages.
Respondents averaged more than 12 years of experience as interpreters, and approximately seven years working with remote healthcare interpreting. Over half had logged more than 1,000 hours’ experience in medical interpreting, both remote and on-site. Interpreting or translation was a main occupation for 94% of respondents. Nearly three-quarters (72%) said they work as freelancers.
The Good, the Bad, and the Self-Assured
Most interpreters had performed all three main modalities of medical interpreting: on-site, OPI, and VRI, most commonly providing remote interpreting from home. The most prevalent configuration sees the provider and patient at the same location while the interpreter is off-site.
Among respondents, Zoom was the most commonly used platform for both OPI and VRI, followed by Microsoft Teams, Cisco Jabber, Skype, and language service providers’ or healthcare systems’ proprietary platforms. Less frequently mentioned platforms included Google Meet, WhatsApp, and FaceTime.
Strikingly, most interpreters considered neither OPI nor VRI an improvement on in-person interpreting, with a significant proportion considering OPI (58%) and VRI (38.5%) to be more difficult.
Interpreters described OPI as suitable for short and relatively routine interactions, but not the delivery of bad news or other highly emotional settings, such as psychotherapy. Those situations would be better suited for VRI, which is also more prevalent in “complex settings,” such as healthcare encounters that overlap with a need for social services.
The benefits interpreters reap from OPI are similar to those offered by VRI: no commute; the comfort of working from home (including time- and cost-savings); and the the ability to seek real-time vocabulary assistance on a device. (Interpreters noted that patients can also benefit from increased access to healthcare and better privacy protections.)
Slator 2024 Interpreting Technology and AI Report
The 50-page report provides a 360-degree view of interpreting technology and AI-enabled solutions for interpreting and real-time multilingual communication.
But the challenges are real, and rarely come with a quick fix. About 90% of OPI and VRI interpreters have had trouble with background noise and sound quality. Interpreters also reported stress, fatigue, and physical discomfort after long remote interpreting assignments.
Poor logistics, including a lack of briefing and inappropriate etiquette, are issues that directly impact interpreters, but are often out of their control. The time pressure on busy medical providers can also cause stress for interpreters, since interpreting often adds time to an already tight appointment.
The lack of face-to-face human interaction during any kind of remote interpreting can present a challenge, which is compounded for OPI due to the missing visual cues.
Participants perceived VRI as having a less negative impact on interpreting than OPI. Only 12% of interpreters gave OPI a positive rating, with most (54%) believing OPI is more stressful than in-person interpreting, and 70% calling it more tiring. They also considered VRI less tiring than OPI.
Despite all these drawbacks, most respondents said they believe remote interpreting has a neutral impact on their performance, compared to in-person interpreting.
