Journal Article

Improving interpreting for dementia assessments: Results from the MINDSET trial

Enticott, Joanne, Antoniades, Josefine, LoGiudice, Dina, Garcia, Erika Gonzalez, Hlavac, Jim, White, Jennifer, Brijnath, Bianca, Woodward‐Kron, Robyn, Lin, Xiaoping, Markusevska, Simona, Hwang, Kerry, Cavuoto, Marina G., Low, Lee‐Fay, Gilbert, Andrew

2024

Overview

Background The Improving Interpreting for Dementia Assessments (MINDSET) study aimed to upskill interpreters through an online co‐designed course in dementia and cognitive assessments. Methods A single‐blinded randomized controlled digital trial conducted between June 2022 and November 2023. Interpreters were randomized to training or waitlist control conditions with 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐up. The primary outcome was a composite Z‐score comprising dementia and cross‐cultural knowledge, translation and ethical knowledge, and observed interpreting skills. Preliminary analyses were conducted using a mixed ANOVA with assessment period as the within‐subjects factor and intervention group as the between‐subjects factor, controlling for age. Results 126 interpreters (Mage = 44.13 years (SD = 12.71) completed baseline (22 Arabic, 14 Cantonese, 6 Greek, 14 Italian, 64 Mandarin, 6 Vietnamese), 3m follow‐up (n = 100) and 6m follow‐up (n = 101). For the primary outcome, there were no significant main effects for assessment period F (2, 178) = 0.21, p = .814 nor intervention group F (1, 89) = 0.31, p = .548, and no significant interaction between intervention group and assessment period, F (2, 178) = 0.64, p = .526. Secondary outcomes revealed significant main effects for dementia knowledge (DKAS) for the assessment period, F (2, 98) = 8.80, p <.001, and intervention group F (1, 99) = 4.59, p = .035, with significantly higher scores at the 3‐ (mean difference = 1.308, SE = .31, p <.001, 95% CI .692, 1.924) and 6‐month follow‐up (mean difference = .814, SE = .31, p = .010, 95% CI .203, 1.425); and significantly higher scores in the intervention compared to control (mean difference = .842, SE = .393, p = .035, 95% CI .062, 1.621). A significant interaction between assessment period and intervention group F (2, 98) = 3.33, p = .040 indicated that the increase in scores at the 3‐ and 6‐month periods were greater for the intervention group. Conclusions This is the first time a dementia training resource for interpreters has been trialled. Preliminary analyses revealed an improvement in interpreter’s dementia knowledge.

• Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subject: Arabic language / Cantonese / Clinical Manifestations / Dementia / Ethics / Evaluation / Greek language / Groups / Interpreters / Interpreting / Intervention / Italian language / Knowledge / Mandarin / Training / Variance analysis / Vietnamese language