The research forms part of a wider implementation project examining the use of professionally trained interpreters, or PTIs, in English maternity services. Effective communication is fundamental to safe and equitable maternity care, yet language barriers remain a persistent challenge for migrant women. While professionally trained interpreters improve access and patient experience, interpreted consultations introduce well-documented difficulties around accuracy, impartiality, and cultural mediation. Within UK maternity services, variability in interpreter training and limited clinician understanding of the interpreter role contribute to concerns about trust, fidelity of information, and informed consent — the technical bedrock on which clinical decisions are made.

Methodologically, the team guided their analysis by Normalisation Process Theory, a framework used in health services research to examine how complex interventions become embedded in routine practice. The theory distinguishes between sense-making, which the researchers call coherence, and the interactional work that people do together, which they call collective action. Between January and May 2025, the researchers recruited and interviewed 28 interpreters with recent maternity experience. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using NVivo software, with coherence and collective action serving as sensitising concepts. In a notable methodological refinement, interim findings were discussed with women who had lived experience of maternity interpreting, allowing the analysis to be checked against the realities it described.

The interviews revealed that interpreters navigate persistent tensions between impartiality, accuracy, and the need for cultural and emotional mediation. Three interrelated themes emerged from the thematic analysis. The first, labelled impartiality and boundary tensions, highlighted interpreters’ efforts to maintain professional distance amid emotional labour and expectations from both women and clinicians. The second, accuracy and fidelity in practice, showed how achieving accurate understanding often required interpreters to actively intervene, reframe information, or seek clarification — sometimes in direct tension with strict neutrality. The third, cultural and linguistic mediation, demonstrated interpreters’ critical but under-recognised role in explaining cultural norms, managing dialect differences, and supporting health literacy.

The first theme exposes the emotional architecture of the job. Interpreters described working in encounters saturated with fear, pain, and sometimes grief, while being expected to function as transparent conduits rather than human participants. Maintaining professional distance is the formal standard, but the expectations placed on interpreters pull in opposite directions. Women in labour may want comfort, advocacy, or reassurance; clinicians may want a compliant translation channel. Interpreters reported managing these competing demands as a continuous act of boundary work, deciding moment by moment how much of themselves to allow into the encounter without compromising the trust placed in their role.

The second theme carries the study’s most consequential technical finding: verbatim translation is not the same as accurate understanding. Interpreters explained that achieving genuine comprehension often required them to intervene actively — rephrasing a clinician’s question so it made sense in the woman’s linguistic frame, pausing to seek clarification when a term was ambiguous, or reframing information that would otherwise be misleading if translated word for word. Each of these moves is a deviation from strict neutrality, yet each is also a safeguard for patient safety and informed consent. The study frames this as a dynamic, relational practice that extends beyond verbatim translation, with interpreters acting as active contributors to communication rather than passive conduits.

The third theme addresses the invisible layer of the encounter. Interpreters described explaining cultural norms that clinicians might misread, managing dialect differences that standard language training rarely covers, and supporting health literacy for women navigating an unfamiliar healthcare system. This mediation work is critical but under-recognised, and the researchers argue that it is precisely the kind of labour that formal codes of interpreting practice fail to capture. When a clinician assumes the interpreter is simply repeating words, the cultural and linguistic scaffolding that makes the consultation work remains unseen — and unsupported.

Practical conditions in maternity services shape how well this complex work can be done. The study found that face-to-face interpreting and continuity — seeing the same interpreter across appointments — enhanced accuracy and trust, while remote interpreting made communication and interaction more difficult. In a maternity context, where consultations involve intimate examinations, rapid decisions, and emotionally charged moments, the loss of physical presence and relational continuity is not a minor inconvenience. It degrades the very channels — tone, gesture, shared history — that interpreters rely on to calibrate meaning and build the trust that accurate communication requires.

The study’s conclusions point toward concrete system-level fixes. The researchers argue that clearer role expectations, standardised interpreter training, and clinician education on working with interpreters are essential to support this complex work and improve equity and quality in maternity care. The current variability in interpreter training across UK maternity services, combined with limited clinician understanding of what interpreters actually do, leaves both parties improvising around an undefined role. Standardising expectations would not eliminate the tensions the study documents — impartiality, accuracy, and mediation will always pull against each other — but it would give interpreters the professional legitimacy to perform the interventions that patient safety demands.

What makes this research resonate beyond maternity wards is its reframing of what medical interpreting actually is. The prevailing model treats interpretation as a mechanical conversion problem: words in, equivalent words out. The evidence from these 28 interpreters suggests it is closer to a collaborative communication system, one in which the interpreter is an active component whose judgement, cultural knowledge, and relational skill determine whether information survives the crossing between languages intact. Recognising interpreters as active contributors to communication — balancing ethical principles with patient understanding and safety — is not a concession to imprecision. It is an acknowledgement of how understanding is actually built, one carefully engineered intervention at a time.

Subject of Research: Health

Article Title: Interactional work and the pursuit of accuracy in maternity interpreting: a qualitative analysis of interpreters’ experiences

Article References: MacLellan, J., Baz, S. A., Begum, M., MacFarlane, A., Olayiwola, W., Rowe, R., & Sheard, L. (2026). Interactional work and the pursuit of accuracy in maternity interpreting: a qualitative analysis of interpreters’ experiences. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15853-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12913-026-15853-9

Keywords: Interactional, work, pursuit, accuracy, maternity, interpreting, qualitative, analysis, interpreters, experiences, scientific research