急诊科专业口译员使用率：系统综述与荟萃分析。
完整摘要 · 中文译文
背景：急诊科（ED）越来越多地为语言多样化的患者群体提供服务。专业口译服务可改善护理，但其使用仍不一致。量化使用率并了解差异可为政策和干预措施提供依据。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析，以估计英语国家急诊科中专业口译员使用的普遍程度，并比较不同患者群体和国家之间的使用情况。 方法：检索了8个数据库，时间从建库至2025年5月15日。我们对先前一项范围综述中纳入的全文进行了筛选，以确定报告英语国家急诊科中需要口译服务的患者使用专业口译员情况的研究。我们合并了总体使用率，并按人群（成人 vs. 儿童）和国家（美国 vs. 其他国家）进行分层分析，同时提供95%预测区间和置信区间（CI）。元回归分析评估了研究年份与使用率之间的关联。使用JBI患病率研究清单评估偏倚风险。 结果：共纳入32项研究，时间跨度为1997年至2025年，涉及65,736名参与者。在需要口译服务的患者就诊中，专业口译员的使用率为29%（CI，20%，38%）。儿童的使用率（49%；CI，41%，58%）高于成人（16%；CI，11%，22%），美国的使用率（33%；CI，24%，43%）高于其他国家（14%；CI，4%，30%）。研究年份与口译员使用之间无显著关联（p = 0.38）。 结论：尽管已知有诸多益处，但急诊科中专业口译员的使用 s 仍然较低，尤其是在成年人中以及在美国以外。解决这一差距需要临床医生、卫生系统领导者和政策制定者协调努力，以提高急诊科（EDs）中语言一致护理的可及性和问责性。
完整摘要 · 英文原文
BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) increasingly serve linguistically diverse populations. Professional interpretation improves care, yet its use remains variable. Quantifying the prevalence of use and understanding disparities can inform policies and interventions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of professional interpreter use in English-speaking EDs and compare use across patient populations and countries. METHODS: Eight databases were searched from inception to May 15, 2025. We screened full texts included in a prior scoping review to identify studies reporting the prevalence of professional interpreter use among patients requiring interpretation in English-speaking EDs. We pooled prevalence overall and stratified by population (adult vs. children) and country (United States vs. other), with 95% prediction intervals and confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression assessed associations between study year and prevalence. Risk of bias was evaluated using the JBI checklist for prevalence studies. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies spanning 1997-2025 involving 65,736 participants were included. Professional interpreters were used in 29% (CI, 20%, 38%) of encounters with patients requiring interpretation. Use was higher with children (49%; CI, 41%, 58%) than adults (16%; CI, 11%, 22%), and higher in the United States (33%; CI, 24%, 43%) than other countries (14%; CI, 4%, 30%). There was no significant association between study year and interpreter use (p = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Despite known benefits, professional interpreter use in EDs remains low, particularly among adults and outside the United States. Addressing this gap will require coordinated efforts from clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers to improve access to and accountability for language-concordant care in EDs.