Skip to main content

Table 1 Incidence of language barrier, interpreter use, unmet interpreter need and perceived costs saving potential

From: The migration-related language barrier and professional interpreter use in primary health care in Switzerland

Frequency consultations with language barriers (hindering direct quality communication)
p < 0.001
(FD vs. PCP)
N total < 1x/ year ≥ 1x/year
(<1x/month)
≥ 1x/month
(<1x/week)
≥ 1x/week
Total 599 55 9.2% 153 25.5% 206 34.3% 185 30.9%
FD 351 46 13.1% 87 24.8% 124 35.3% 94 26.8%
PCP 247 9 3.6% 66 26.7% 81 39.5% 91 36.8%
Frequency interpreter interventionsa
p = 0.003
(FD vs. PCP)
N total < 1x/ year ≥ 1x/year
(<1x/month)
≥ 1x/month
(<1x/week)
≥ 1x/week
Total 506 338 66.8% 120 23.7% 41 8.1% 7 1.4%
FD 286 210 73.4% 56 19.6% 17 5.9% 3 1.1%
PCP 219 127 58.9% 64 29.2% 24 11.0% 2 1.8%
Frequency interpreter desired but currently not presenta
p = 0.06
(FD vs. PCP)
N total < 1x/ year ≥ 1x/year
(<1x/month)
≥ 1x/month
(<1x/week)
≥ 1x/week
Total 501 61 12.2% 177 35.3% 196 39.1% 67 13.4%
FD 285 42 14.7% 105 36.8% 107 37.5% 31 10.9%
PCP 215 19 8.8% 72 33.5% 88 40.9% 36 16.7%
Frequency cost saving potential through additional interpreter usea
p = 0.66
(FD vs. PCP)
N total < 1x/ year ≥ 1x/year
(<1x/month)
≥ 1x/month
(<1x/week)
≥ 1x/week
Total 423 138 32.6% 176 41.6% 92 21.8% 17 4.0%
FD 234 73 31.2% 104 44.4% 48 20.5% 9 3.9%
PCP 188 65 34.6% 72 38.3% 43 22.9% 8 4.3%
  1. a only concerns respondents facing language barriers