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