Back

The experience and perception of first language usage in healthcare: the Welsh perspective

Morgan, A. H.; Edwards, M. E.; Bodger, O.; Brown, M.; Roberts, L.; Roberts, L. D.; Davies, J. S.

2025-02-24 primary care research
10.1101/2025.02.20.25322596 medRxiv
Show abstract

Several studies have shown that using language that is most suitable for the patient is essential for effective communication in healthcare. Using a patients second language during health consultations can negatively impact a patient, causing delays in treatment and misdiagnosis. In Wales both Welsh and English have equal status in public sector organisations, however, independent primary care providers such as General Practices (GPs), do not need to comply with all the Welsh Language Standards. Thus, there is inconsistency in the availability of bilingual healthcare provision. This mixed methods study used a focus group and a survey of the Welsh speaking general population (361 participants) to gauge awareness of the Welsh Language Standards and collect experiences of bilingual healthcare, concentrating on GPs. The data underwent both qualitative thematic and quantitative analysis and revealed low awareness of the Welsh Language Standards (27%). Overall, respondents felt that their need to use Welsh is not taken seriously, with 71% having never been offered a Welsh consultation. 57% that have an English medium doctor reported that they would feel more comfortable having their consultations in Welsh. 32% of respondents from higher percentage Welsh speaking areas have felt restricted by their inability to communicate in their first language during GP appointments. There was overwhelming support for recording a patients preferred language on health records. The results suggest that the Welsh speaking public both want and need Welsh provision in primary care. However, there is a need to review primary care policies to facilitate a more effective roll out of an active offer of first language healthcare in Wales.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.