Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Interpreter Communication Quality in Cognitive Assessments for Dementia
Bianca Brijnath, Simona Markusevska, Joanne Enticott, Parneet Sethi, Andrew Simon Gilbert, Erika González, Jim Hlavač, Lee‐Fay Low et al.. JAMA Network Open, 2025-02-12
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
At baseline, there were 126 participants (106 [84.1%] women); mean (SD) age was 44.13 (12.71) years, mean years of interpreting experience was 8.57 (8.48) years, and 106 of 120 (88.3%) lived in an urban area. A total of 22 (17.5%) were Arabic interpreters; 14 (11.1%), Cantonese; 6 (4.8%), Greek; 14 (11.1%), Italian; 64 (50.8%), Mandarin; and 6 (4.8%), Vietnamese. The primary outcome of communication quality in the main analysis did not significantly improve in the intervention group compared with controls (mean score difference, 2.10; 95% CI, -0.43 to 4.62; P = .10). Per-protocol findings showed a significant intervention effect (mean score difference, 2.73; 95% CI, 0.14-5.31; P = .04), suggesting that the MINDSET-trained interpreters benefited in the primary outcome when they completed at least 70% of the training. Of the 5 domains, a significant intervention effect was shown in only domain 1 (knowledge of dementia) in the main analysis (mean score difference, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.54-1.77; P < .001) and per-protocol analysis (1.03; 95% CI, 0.27-1.79; P = .008) at 3 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, results of the primary, intention-to-treat analysis showed that interpreters' overall interpreting communication quality did not improve in the intervention group compared with controls, but in the secondary, per-protocol analysis, it was improved when at least 70% of the training was completed. These findings suggest that an online training intervention can improve interpreters' communication quality during cognitive assessments for dementia if at least 70% of training is completed. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12621001281886.
Key findings
- At baseline, there were 126 participants (106 [84.1%] women); mean (SD) age was 44.13 (12.71) years, mean years of interpreting experience was 8.57 (8.48) years, and 106 of 120 (88.3%) lived in an urban area.
- A total of 22 (17.5%) were Arabic interpreters; 14 (11.1%), Cantonese; 6 (4.8%), Greek; 14 (11.1%), Italian; 64 (50.8%), Mandarin; and 6 (4.8%), Vietnamese.
- The primary outcome of communication quality in the main analysis did not significantly improve in the intervention group compared with controls (mean score difference, 2.10; 95% CI, -0.43 to 4.62; P = .10).
- Per-protocol findings showed a significant intervention effect (mean score difference, 2.73; 95% CI, 0.14-5.31; P = .04), suggesting that the MINDSET-trained interpreters benefited in the primary outcome when they completed at least 70% of the training.
- Of the 5 domains, a significant intervention effect was shown in only domain 1 (knowledge of dementia) in the main analysis (mean score difference, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.54-1.77; P < .001) and per-protocol analysis (1.03; 95% CI, 0.27-1.79; P = .008) at 3 months.
Why it matters
This trial tested training for interpreters who conduct cognitive assessments for dementia, and the main analysis found no significant improvement in overall communication quality compared with controls. A per-protocol analysis suggested benefit for interpreters who completed at least 70% of the training, and knowledge of dementia improved significantly.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Participants126
- Effect size84.1%; 88.3%; 17.5%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA Network Open) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | JAMA Network Open: journal h-index 235 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 126 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 4 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 4.8× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 4 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 1 / 4 | Last-listed author Marina G. Cavuoto: h-index 16 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | The University of Sydney: institution h-index 1,466 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 8 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39937478) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 52 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58069
- PubMed: 39937478
- Original source →
- Free full text: JAMA Network Open →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Brijnath, B., Markusevska, S., Enticott, J., Sethi, P., Gilbert, A. S., González, E., et al. (2025). Interpreter Communication Quality in Cognitive Assessments for Dementia. JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58069
Vancouver
Brijnath B, Markusevska S, Enticott J, Sethi P, Gilbert AS, González E, et al. Interpreter Communication Quality in Cognitive Assessments for Dementia. JAMA Network Open. 2025. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58069. PMID: 39937478.
BibTeX
@article{brijnath2025-39937478,
author = {Brijnath, Bianca and Markusevska, Simona and Enticott, Joanne and Sethi, Parneet and Gilbert, Andrew Simon and González, Erika and Hlavač, Jim and Low, Lee‐Fay and others},
title = {{Interpreter Communication Quality in Cognitive Assessments for Dementia}},
journal = {JAMA Network Open},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58069},
pmid = {39937478},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58069}
}
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “prevalence”
1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.