Back to research feed

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

October 1, 2026 ¡ via Europe PMC

Prevalence of Professional Interpreter Use in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Li H, Ramirez A, Hartling L, Khangura J, Dennett L, Do V, Ganeshamoorthy K, Ali S.

Systematic ReviewOpen access

AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only

Professional interpreters were used in under a third of ED encounters with patients needing interpretation, with notably lower use in adults and outside the United States.

What was studied

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies (1997 to 2025; 65,736 participants) in English-speaking EDs, pooling prevalence of professional interpreter use overall and by population and country, with meta-regression by study year.

Key findings

  • Professional interpreters were used in 29% of encounters (CI 20%, 38%)
  • Use was 49% with children versus 16% with adults
  • Use was 33% in the United States versus 14% in other countries
  • There was no significant association between study year and use (p = 0.38)

Clinical relevance

Highlights an access gap in language-concordant care, calling for system-level accountability and easier access to interpreters.

Who should care

Emergency Medicine

Limitations

Wide confidence intervals and heterogeneity, observational studies, and only English-speaking EDs were included.

Interpreter use remains low and has not clearly improved over time.

This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.

Abstract

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.

DOI

10.1111/acem.70427

PMID

42872863

Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.

Want more like this?

Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.

Back to the research feed

Create a free account ¡ Sign in