Table 1 Study measures and data sources

Implementation and effectiveness outcomes

 Interpreter use (primary outcome)

Dichotomous variable per non-English language patient visit, constructed by matching professional interpreter vendor invoices to clinic visits with enrolled providers; calculated overall and as assigned (e.g., mobile video interpreting for assigned providers) [27, 46, 57]

 X

 Patient/parent comprehension

Dichotomous variable coded as yes vs no or unclear, based on 2 blinded coders evaluating concordance between patient-reported and provider-documented diagnosis, against the standard of whether a follow-up provider would know the diagnosis based on the patient-reported information [46, 70]

 X

 X

Patient factors

 Patient/parent health literacy

Confidence in filling out medical forms, with options from extremely confident (0) to not at all confident (4); scores ≥ 2 considered low health literacy [71,72,73]

 X

 Visit type

Annual/wellness exam, acute visit, or chronic condition follow-up

 X

X

 Patient demographics

-Insurance: None/public insurance, private insurance

-Race/ethnicity: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, multiracial/other, White, prefer to self-describe

-Sex: Male, female, or self-describe

-Age: Continuous variable

 X

 X

 Respondent demographics (patient or parent)

-English proficiency: Very well, well, not well, not at all

-Education: < high school, high school graduate, > high school

-Respondent relationship to patient: Self, mother, father, other guardian

 X

Provider and clinic barriers, organized by Theoretical Domain Framework and COM-B categories [37]

Capability—psychological

 Conceptual knowledge

Importance of communication and interpreter use, via TDF questionnaire [74] and interview

 X

 X

 Technical knowledge

How to access and use an interpreter effectively, via TDF questionnaire [74], interview, and coded provider behaviors on video recording

 X

 X

 X

 Attention and decisions

Cognitive overload, via interview

 X

Capability—physical

 Provider skills

Skills to access interpreter and communicate effectively, via TDF questionnaire [74], interview, and coded provider behaviors on video recording

 X

 X

 X

Motivation—reflective

 Beliefs about capabilities

Confidence in ability to access and communicate via interpreter, via TDF questionnaire [74] and interview

 X

 X

 Beliefs about consequences

Belief that interpreter use is important; expected barriers, delays, difficulties; expected quality of communication and interpretation; via TDF questionnaire [74] and interview

 X

 X

 Goals and intentions

Intention to use interpreter via TDF questionnaire [74] and interview and engagement with assigned strategy, measured by mobile video interpreting use and module completion

 X 

X 

 X

Motivation—automatic

 Professional identity

Sense of professional duty to use interpretation, via TDF questionnaire [74]

 X

 Reinforcement

Provider-reported satisfaction and communication quality via interview; patient-reported satisfaction with communication and interpretation, via survey (the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) communication composite [75,76,77,78] and the interpreter satisfaction questionnaire[79]) and interview

 X

 X

 X

Opportunity—social

 Social influences

Group and leadership norms, via TDF questionnaire [74], Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) questionnaire [80], the Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS) [81], and interview

 X

 X

Opportunity—physical

 Environmental context and resources

Time constraints, types of interpretation available, difficulty in accessing available interpreter types, wireless infrastructure, and clinic process to identify LEP patients, via TDF questionnaire [74], interview, and coded provider behaviors on video recording

 X

 X

 X