Healthcare Providers Use Translation Tools Despite Governance Gaps

Translation technologies were used by 65.0% of healthcare providers in a cross-sectional online survey of multilingual healthcare settings, according to a study involving 443 healthcare and psychosocial service providers in Germany and Romania. The survey found that these tools were often used without formal organisational support, training, or guidelines. Acceptance was moderately positive, while perceived usefulness showed the strongest controlled association with behavioural intention to use translation technologies. Providers also reported concerns about accuracy and data privacy, and described more cautious use when communication required nuanced, relational interaction.

The study included 258 respondents in the German sample and 185 in the Romanian sample. Inferential analyses were limited to the German sample, whereas Romanian data were used for exploratory descriptive comparison. The survey assessed experiences with language barriers, communication strategies, and acceptance of translation technologies using questions based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Because the study collected observations at one point in time, it can identify associations among perceptions, organisational conditions, and intended use, but it cannot establish that any particular factor caused providers to adopt or reject translation technologies. Nor did it directly measure the tools’ effects on patient care, clinical outcomes, or communication accuracy in individual consultations.

Use of translation technologies varied descriptively between the two country samples and among professional groups, with higher use reported in the German sample and among medical-technical and nursing staff. The 65.0% figure refers to providers reporting use during the previous three months; it does not indicate how frequently a tool was used in each patient encounter or how it compared with professional interpreting. The findings suggest that translation technologies are functioning in some settings as pragmatic, ad hoc responses to communication difficulties rather than as consistently integrated clinical resources. The absence of formal support, training, or guidelines in many reported uses also means that the study did not evaluate a single standardised implementation model.

In multivariable ordinary least-squares regression with HC3-robust inference among the German respondents, perceived usefulness had the strongest independently measured relationship with behavioural intention to use translation technologies (β = 0.44, p < 0.001). Organisational factors and contextual concerns were not independently associated with behavioural intention after the model accounted for the included variables. This regression result is an association, not a causal effect: providers who viewed a tool as useful may also have been more inclined to use it, and unmeasured factors could influence both perceptions and intentions. The outcome was behavioural intention rather than independently verified clinical performance. Providers nevertheless expressed practical reservations, including concerns about accuracy and data privacy, alongside more cautious use in interactions requiring nuanced, relational communication.

The authors concluded that translation technologies may be best understood as complementary resources within a broader communication strategy rather than replacements for professional interpreting services. Qualified interpreters are considered the preferred standard, but the study notes that their availability can be limited, leaving technology to address practical gaps in multilingual care. The evidence does not show that the tools solved language barriers, improved health outcomes, or safely replaced interpreters. Instead, it documents recent use alongside uneven organisational preparation and unresolved concerns about reliability, privacy, and the kinds of communication that demand more sensitive interpretation. The cross-sectional design, descriptive comparison between countries, and restriction of the main statistical analysis to the German sample limit what can be concluded about changes over time, universal patterns across healthcare systems, or the consequences of implementation for equity and patient safety.

Subject of Research: Healthcare providers’ use and acceptance of translation technologies in multilingual healthcare settings

Article Title: Healthcare providers’ use and acceptance of translation technologies in multilingual healthcare settings: a cross-sectional study

Article References: Kreienbrinck, A., Hanft-Robert, S., Topçu, M.-T., Oltean, O., Forray, A.-I., Cherecheș, R. M., & Mösko, M. (2026). Healthcare providers’ use and acceptance of translation technologies in multilingual healthcare settings: a cross-sectional study. International Journal for Equity in Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-026-03085-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12939-026-03085-6

Keywords: translation technology, multilingual healthcare, language barriers, technology acceptance, healthcare providers, medical interpreting, data privacy, health equity, organisational support, nursing staff, Healthcare, providers