Multilingualism in Psychotherapists in Training in Germany: Results of a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Patients who speak languages other than those spoken by mental health professionals are significantly disadvantaged in mental health care settings. To bridge the communication gap, multilingual health professionals and professional interpreters are target-orientated solutions. This study was conducted to assess the multilingual resources, attitudes and needs of psychotherapist trainees in Germany. A cross-sectional nationwide online survey was conducted on psychotherapists-in-training. The 48-item survey consisted of a self-developed instrument to assess ‘Attitudes towards working with an Interpreter in Health Care Services (AIHC-20)’ with partly reasonable psychometric properties. Psychotherapists-in-training were reached via 238 institutes for psychotherapy training in Germany. Some 803 psychotherapists-in-training completed the survey, of whom 27% had a migration background and 76% would treat patients in a language other than German. According to the participants, on average, 7.5% of their treated patients had limited German skills. The likeability of treating patients with limited German skills and of working with professional interpreters was positively influenced by a personal migration background, cross-cultural encounters in everyday life and previous work experience. Some 52% of all trainees had experience in working with an interpreter and 72% of them stated a training on ‘psychotherapy with an interpreter’ to be useful. The linguistic diversity among future psychotherapists is not able to fully cover the patients’ actual multilingual needs. Therefore, qualified interpreters need to be integrated into mental health care services. In addition to adequate funding and minimal qualification standards for interpreters, psychotherapists need to be trained to overcome cultural barriers.

Keywords

psychotherapists-in-training psychotherapy migration background interpreter language

Introduction

Migrant patient groups are among those facing the greatest barriers in the mental health care (MHC) system (Lebano et al., 2020), even though they suffer from mental disorders more frequently than non-migrant populations (Li et al., 2019) and report a lower overall quality of life (Hall et al., 2018). Potential language barriers can pose a particular challenge for migrant patients: in these cases, access to the MHC system and the quality of treatment received are often compromised (Bauer et al., 2010; Lay et al., 2024; Njeru et al., 2016). Despite numerous calls to integrate cultural as well as linguistic aspects into MHC (e.g. in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the issue of language barriers remains largely neglected. In a study conducted in the United States, between 9.9% and 13.5% of patients reported limited English proficiency (Anderson et al., 2020). The need for language support among immigrants often persists long after their arrival; a Danish study reported that 15% of patients with a migration background said that they needed an interpreter in general healthcare seven years after their arrival (Harpelund et al., 2012).

Owing to migration and globalisation, the linguistic diversity of countries is far greater than suggested by their official language(s). For example, researchers estimate that more than 200 languages are spoken in Germany (Gogolin & Krüger-Potratz, 2012). In many MHC contexts in which the languages spoken by care providers do not match those of their patients (Mösko et al., 2013), a range of informal interpreting practices takes place, including using family members and cleaning staff as interpreters (Kilian et al., 2021; Swartz et al., 2014), the use of receptive multilingualism (ten Thije, 2018) or a reliance on machine translation (Dew et al., 2018). Lack of adequate communication strategies may lead to uncertainty, information deficits, poor adherence and lower treatment success on behalf of the patient (Lebrun, 2012), and to dissatisfaction, higher rates of misdiagnosis, and premature treatment discontinuation on behalf of (mental) health professionals (Al Shamsi et al., 2020; Babitsch et al., 2008; Haasen et al., 2000). Although psychotherapy with a professional interpreter has proven to be as effective as psychotherapy in the first learned language (Brune et al., 2011; Fennig & Denov, 2021; Lambert & Alhassoon, 2015), mental health professionals mention difficulties and inhibitions when working with professional interpreters because of a lack of finance, lack of services, and organisational challenges, experience and hindering attitudes (Gartner et al., 2024; Penka et al., 2012) as well as the limitations of professionals’ qualifications (Hanft-Robert & Mösko, 2024).

Studies point to the desire expressed by licensed psychotherapists to implement intercultural topics (e.g. working with an interpreter) in their training (Gartner et al., 2024). Thus, the aim of this survey was to assess linguistic diversity and its practical use among psychotherapists-in-training in Germany, their experience with and attitudes towards professional interpreting, the number of patients with limited German language skills, and the need for training to work in a triad.

Methods

Design

The cross-sectional, nationwide study was implemented and enabled through the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). The survey was conducted among psychotherapists-in-training in Germany (all with a master's degree in psychology or similar) as an online survey, implemented on SoSci Survey (Leiner, 2024).

Recruitment

A survey link and cover letter were emailed to all 238 publicly identifiable institutes for psychotherapy training in Germany with a request to forward the email to their trainees. In addition, the link was spread in forums and social media groups used by the target group. A small incentive in the form of the possibility of winning 1 of 20 online book vouchers (worth €15 each) was offered to increase participation rate.

Informed Consent and Data Protection

At the beginning of the survey, participants received written information about the study's purpose, data privacy policy and an ethical statement including confidentiality, informed consent and voluntary participation according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013). Participants were informed of the aim, background and duration of the survey prior to taking part. All participants provided written informed consent for the survey to be evaluated, and the results of the study to be published anonymously.

Data Collection

Data were collected between February and March 2019. To increase the participation rate, a reminder email was sent after two weeks to all 238 institutes for psychotherapy training.

Instrument Development and Pretesting

The applied instrument was developed based on prior paper-and-pencil questionnaires (Mösko et al., 2024; Wagner, 2018). Part of the instrument was the questionnaire on ‘Attitudes towards working with an Interpreter in Health Care Services (AIHC-20)’, which consisted of 20 items (e.g. ‘I could imagine working more frequently with interpreters if access were easier’) assessed with a 5-point Likert-scale and was developed as a generic instrument for different healthcare services. The developed instrument was evaluated by six experts in the fields of community interpreting, healthcare services, legal interpretation, intercultural training, psychology and migration research. After modification, the instrument was pretested for usability by two people from the target group as an offline-paper version and by five people from the target group as an online version.

Questionnaire

The final questionnaire consisted of 48 items and was divided into seven sections. The first section collected sociodemographic data (city, age, gender) and the second collected information on psychotherapy training details. Sections three to five focused on the trainees’ migration background, language capacities and use (e.g. ‘In which languages other than German would you feel confident offering treatment?’), cross-cultural encounters (e.g. ‘Do you have contact with people from different cultural backgrounds within your family and circle of friends?’), relevance of language barriers in psychotherapeutic treatment and interpreter use. AIHC-20 was used as the sixth section. The last section included a question about preferences for interpreting and items assessing the need for further training.

The AIHC-20 was tested psychometrically. All item difficulties ranged between .37 and .75, except for item 12 (.80). The corrected item–total correlation value of the items should be above .5, which was the case for items 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 14 and 15; items 4 and 5 were under .3. The internal consistency of the scale was assessed by Cronbach's alpha (α = .866) which can be considered as good.

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin criterion value was .882 and the Bartlett test of sphericity showed a highly significant result (p < .001), which allowed us to conduct a principal component analysis with varimax-rotation. The number of selected factors was determined by conducting a parallel analysis. Factor analysis extracted two factors, which explained 41.28% of the total variance. Because the items subsumed under the factors were heterogeneous, meaningful classification and interpretation was not possible. The assessment was conducted on a single-item basis, instead.

Data Analysis

Only completed questionnaires were considered for the analysis. People who discontinued the online questionnaire prematurely were excluded. The data were analysed using SPSS Version 28. Descriptive analyses were calculated to characterise the current lingual and cultural diversity of German psychotherapists-in-training. After checking the test requirements, chi-square tests were used for exploratory questions and between-group differences were tested using two-tailed t-tests for metric data and the Mann–Whitney U-test for ordinal scale data. A regression analysis predicted the use of professional interpreters and the treatment of patients with limited German language skills (predictor variable: number of cross-cultural encounters). All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p = .05

Results

Sample

Of the 997 psychotherapy trainees who participated, 194 were excluded due to incomplete data sets, leaving 803 valid responses (age: M = 32.49 years, SD = 6.78 years) (Table 1). There were participants from each of the 16 German federal states. Most of the participants (74%; n = 598) had not worked as a psychologist before starting training.

Table 1.

Sample Description (n = 803).

Variable	Characteristic	Number	Valid Percentage
Gender	Male	108	13
	Female	691	86
	Diverse	4	1
AgeAge groups (years)	M = 32 years
	22–25	58	7
	26–30	332	41
	31–35	223	28
	36–40	90	11
	41–45	48	6
	46–50	29	4
	>50	23	3
Patient target group	Children and youth	187	23
	Adults	591	74
	Both	31	4
Training process (years)	M = 3.30 yearsSD = 1.965
Training type	Cognitive–behavioural therapy	591	74
	Depth psychology	115	14
	Psychoanalysis	80	10
	Systemic therapy	14	2
Migration background	Foreign birthplace	130	16
	At least one parent born abroad	199	25
	Migration background (total)	217	27
First learned language	German	628	78
First learned language	Other language	175	22

Migration Background and Lingual Diversity Among Psychotherapists-in-Training

Some 217 participants (27%) reported a so-called migration background, defined as being born outside Germany or having at least one parent who was born abroad (Table 1).

The 217 psychotherapists with a migration background themselves or whose parents were born abroad came from 65 different countries of origin, most often from Russia (n = 16), Bulgaria (n = 10), Poland and Ukraine (each n = 9), Romania (n = 8), Turkey (n = 7), Iran or Italy (each n = 6).

Some 175 (22%) participants had a first learned language other than German, with 42 (5.2%) having learned German bilingually. Overall, 38 different languages were reported. The ten most common languages were Russian, Turkish (each 4%), Polish and English (each 2%), Bulgarian, Italian, Persian, Romanian and Spanish (each 1%) and Dutch (<1%).

A total of 99% of the participants (n = 791) stated that they had learned at least one other language in addition to their first learned language (not including German, Latin, Old Greek, or sign language). Of those, 304 (38%) participants spoke two additional languages, 260 (33%) three additional languages, and 97 (12%) more than three languages. Altogether, 44 languages were reported. The ten most common languages were English (97%), French (63%), Spanish (34%), Italian (9%), Dutch (8%), Russian (6%), Afrikaans (5%), Swedish (3%), and Turkish and Arabic (each 2%).

Multilingual Treatment

Some 609 (76%) participants reported that they would conduct psychotherapy in a language other than German. In total, 30 treatment languages were reported, including English (82%), French (9%), Spanish (7%), Dutch and Russian (each 5%), Turkish (4%), Italian (3%), Bulgarian, Portuguese, Romanian and Polish (each with 1%).

Significantly more of the participants with a migration background stated that they would conduct psychotherapy in a language other than German compared with those without a migration background (χ² (df = 1) = 29.885, p < .001; n = 803).

Patients with Limited Language Skills

Some 238 (69%) participants had contact to at least one patient with insufficient German language skills for diagnostic and treatment discussion during the past six months. On average, 7.5% (SD = 12.58, n = 779) of patients who had been treated during this period had insufficient German language skills. Participants with a migration background treated significantly more patients with limited German language skills (M = 10%, SD = 16%) compared with participants without a migration background (M = 6%, SD = 11%) (t(778) = 3.799; p < .001). Those who had worked as a psychologist before starting training treated significantly more patients with limited German language skills (M = 10%, SD = 15%) than participants without prior work experience (M = 7%, SD = 12%) [t(788) = −2.821, p = .005]. Furthermore, the number of cross-cultural encounters predicted the treatment of patients with limited German language skills (F(1, 784) = 11.820, p < .001) with β = .122 (t(784) = 3.438, p < .001).

Ninety-six (12%) sample members had refused treatment because of a language barrier in the past six months. There was a significant difference between those who had work experience as psychologists before starting training and those without prior work experience (16% vs 11%; χ² (df = 1) = 4.488, p = .034; n = 803).

Working with Professional Interpreters

In total, 420 (52%) participants already had experience of working with professional interpreters; 208 (26%) participants had already worked with an interpreter during their psychotherapy training; and 293 (37%) in outside psychological or psychotherapeutic training/work (jobs, internships or voluntary work before or parallel to the current training). Most of the trainees stated that they would prefer to work with interpreters on-site (94%) rather than via telephone (2%) or video (4%). Participants with a migration background more often worked with interpreters outside psychotherapy training compared with participants without a migration background (χ² (df = 1) = 18.721, p < .001; n = 803). In addition, participants with prior work experience were more likely to have worked with an interpreter outside psychotherapy training compared with those without prior work experience (χ² (df = 1) = 10.419, p = .001; n = 803). Moreover, prior use of professional interpreters was predicted by participants’ number of cross-cultural encounters (F(1, 801) = 43.438, p < .001). More cross-cultural encounters were significantly associated with a higher frequency of interpreter use (β = −.227, t(801) = −6.591, p ≤ .001).

Attitudes Towards Working with an Interpreter

A descriptive analysis of the AIHC-20 items is given in Table 2.

Table 2.

Frequencies Concerning the Attitudes Towards Working With an Interpreter.

		Totally disagree (%)	Disagree (%)	Neutral (%)	Agree (%)	Totally agree (%)
	Organisational barrier
1	The time and organisational effort doubles when including an interpreter. I can’t afford this.	9	31	30	24	6
2	I could imagine working more frequently with interpreters if access were easier.	2	10	20	42	26
3	If the financing of interpreters were clearly regulated, I would integrate them more often in my work.	4	9	21	37	30
4	I could imagine working more frequently with interpreters if there were a concrete manual for clinical–practical work with interpreters.	6	14	23	37	20
	Qualifications
5	I do not involve interpreters because they are not sufficiently trained for psychological work.	26	35	21	15	3
6	I could imagine working more frequently with interpreters if I were trained for work with interpreters.	5	18	22	38	17
7	I am concerned that when including interpreters, they will intervene.	5	25	30	28	12
	Therapeutic relationship
8	Interpreters interfere with building a relationship of trust between the patient and me.	3	25	33	34	5
9	Inclusion of interpreters hinders the construction of the therapeutic relationship.	2	18	30	37	13
10	I feel excluded when interpreters are included because I do not speak the same language as the patient and the interpreter.	21	40	23	14	2
	General therapeutic process
11	Interpreters calm the treatment situation because the patient and I have breaks to think during the interpreting process.	5	24	44	35	5
12	I appreciate patients increased participation in the conversation when interpreters are included.	1	3	12	43	42
13	Inclusion of interpreters could facilitate diagnostics.	2	6	24	46	22
	Specific therapeutic process
14	I am concerned that patients do not address intimate topics when interpreters are included.	3	17	30	35	15
15	If I include interpreters, I fear that information is lost or that there are mistakes in interpreting.	3	16	29	35	17
16	Cultural misunderstanding could be exposed and addressed through inclusion of interpreters.	<1	5	25	48	21
	Emotional assessment
17	I am uncomfortable when I do not know exactly what is spoken in the patient's language.	8	22	24	34	13
18	I feel assured when working with interpreters.	10	27	34	22	7
	General
19	When a language barrier exists, inclusion of interpreters is the only opportunity to conduct successful psychotherapeutic treatment.	1	6	18	41	34
20	Inclusion of interpreters reduces the patients’ motivation to learn German.	34	36	19	9	3

Organisational Barriers

The majority of participants agreed on working more often with professional interpreters if access (68%) and financing (67%) were easy and clearly regulated. More than half of participants (57%) wished for a clinical–practical manual.

Qualifications and Therapeutic Relationship

Some 40% of participants were concerned about possible interventions by interpreters during therapy sessions. A feeling of exclusion because of language barriers was denied by the majority (61%) of participants.

Emotional Assessment

Nearly half of the participants (47%) reported discomfort when they could not fully understand what was being said during sessions.

Therapeutic Process

Most participants rated the integration of professional interpreters as advantageous for the therapeutic process by facilitating the diagnostic process (68%) and the patient's active participation (85%). Although half of the participants (52%) feared a loss of information or possible mistakes in translation, a majority (69%) appreciated the opportunity of addressing cultural misunderstandings.

General

Most participants (75%) agreed that the inclusion of interpreters is the only opportunity for a successful conduction of psychotherapy if a language barrier exists.

Training in ‘Working with an Interpreter’

A total of 579 (72%) participants stated that training in ‘psychotherapy with an interpreter’ would be useful in their further training. By contrast, only 48 (6%) participants reported that they had already participated in similar training.

Discussion

The current study focused on multilingualism in psychotherapy training in Germany. The aim was to provide data on current linguistic and cultural diversity among German psychotherapists-in-training, on language barriers, and on experiences and attitudes in working with interpreters. Implications for psychotherapeutic practice and training are derived.

At the time the study was conducted, it is assumed that there were between 8000 and 12,000 people undergoing training in Germany (Nübling et al., 2019), thus this sample represented between 6.7% and 10.0% of all German psychotherapists-in-training. The cross-sectional study reached trainees from every German federal state with a distribution comparable with that of the general group of psychotherapists-in-training (Nübling et al., 2019). Gender distribution (86% female) and mean age (32 years) were similar (Nübling et al., 2019). Unlike Mösko et al. (2013) who found licensed psychotherapists with a migration background to be underrepresented in outpatient MHC services, the number of psychotherapist trainees with a migration background (27%) in the current sample was slightly higher compared with the general population (24%) (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2017). We assume that trainees with a migration background may have been more inclined to participate in the study; for example, because the topic resonated with their own or their relatives’ experiences.

Instrument

The self-developed questionnaire measuring ‘Attitudes towards working with an Interpreter in Health Care Services (AIHC-20)’ was the first German language instrument of its kind. However, factor analysis showed that there was no useful interpretation of the suggested underlying two-factor solution, and so further adaptations are needed in future to develop a valid and reliable instrument for assessing health professionals’ attitudes to working with an interpreter.

Language Barrier

The majority of trainees (69%) had worked with patients who did not speak sufficient German to receive psychotherapeutic treatment.

A personal migration background, work experience before starting psychotherapeutic training and number of trainees’ cross-cultural encounters were associated with having treated more patients who had limited German language skills. Indeed, studies report that therapists with a personal migration background are more often consulted by migrants than are therapists without a migration background (Kirkcaldy et al., 2006; Mösko et al., 2013) and that migrants prefer language-concordant treatment (Villalobos et al., 2016). First, therapists with a personal migration background might be perceived as having a better understanding of the importance of language for the therapeutic process (Pavlenko, 2006) and being more culturally open towards this patient group. Second, cross-cultural encounters have been shown to be associated with increased intercultural competence and cultural intelligence (Engle & Crowne, 2014; Holmes & O’Neill, 2012), which might explain the higher treatment rate for patients with limited German language skills. The therapists may feel more confident about and familiar with treatment of this patient group. Moreover, one might guess that the positive feedback they may receive from patients could encourage them to offer more therapy options of this type. Third, work experience has been shown to be significantly associated with perceived therapeutic mastery (Dawson, 2018; Orlinsky et al., 1999). This could explain the correlation between work experience and the number of patients with limited language skills that have been treated. Work experience might boost therapists’ confidence in dealing with treatment situations that are perceived as difficult, such as treatment involving a language barrier.

Treatments were refused by 12% of trainees because of a language barrier. Similar can be observed in other parts of the healthcare system. For example, about one-fifth of clinicians in outpatient diabetes care have refused patient treatment because of a perceived language barrier (Mösko et al., 2024). Refusals by trainees may result from the unavailability of a professional interpreter (Jensen et al., 2017). Furthermore, a lack of supervisors for treatments with an interpreter within psychotherapy training may be one explanation for the refusal to treat patients with limited German language skills. Because a lack of treatment can lead to worsening symptoms, a chronification of the mental disorder and an increased risk for suicidality, this problem has to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Regular funding of interpreting services in the healthcare system and the inclusion of modules on ‘interpreting in psychotherapy’ in training curricula are exemplary measures to counteract this.

Multilingual Treatment

Some 38 first learned languages other than the official language were reported. Twenty-two per cent of participants reported a first learned language other than German, with Russian and Turkish being the two most prominent languages. Also including second language skills, 76% of participants could imagine conducting psychotherapy in a language other than German, with 30 possible treatment languages reported in total. This highlights the trainees’ general potential to address multilingual needs in psychotherapy. Although 99% of participants stated they had learned a second language, almost one-quarter did not feel comfortable with the idea of offering psychotherapy in a language than German. In addition to subjectively perceived insufficient language skills, feelings of insecurity and unprofessionalism when having to treat patients in another language might be an explanation for this discrepancy, because psychotherapy training is taught in German only. Participants who were bilingual reported feeling like a different person when using different languages (Bager-Charleson et al., 2017; Costa & Dewaele, 2012; Dewaele & Costa, 2013) and that the expression of emotions felt closer in one's first learned language (Verkerk et al., 2023). This highlights the importance of language for identity and might explain the caution shown by psychotherapists practising their profession in another language.

An estimated 200 different languages are currently spoken in Germany (Gogolin & Krüger-Potratz, 2012). The languages that trainees offered for multilingual treatment were far from being linguistically diverse. Most of the participants (82%) would offer psychotherapy in English. Offering treatment in Russian and Turkish was reported by at least 5% of the current sample.

Although our findings indicate the general existence of linguistic diversity among psychotherapists in Germany, there is still a huge discrepancy with the patients’ actual needs. The latest supply report of the National Working Group for Psychosocial Counselling for Refugees and Victims of Torture (BAfF e.V., 2023) has shown that more than half of all counselling/therapy sessions in refugee counselling centres in Germany had to be conducted with the assistance of an professional interpreter because communication in German, English or another common language was not possible. Thus, multilingual psychotherapists alone will not be able to sufficiently cover patients’ heterogeneous linguistic needs. Therefore, because migrant patient groups are considered a particularly vulnerable population (Li et al., 2019), the use of professional interpreters is inevitable to ensure access and good quality of treatment for patients speaking any language.

Use of Professional Interpreters

Compared with 26% of survey participants with previous experience of working with professional interpreters, 69% reported a language barrier in their treatment within the past six months. Different factors may be considered to explain this. In Germany, for example, there remains a lack of accessibility and funding opportunities, as well as a lack of qualified interpreters and training institution awareness (Karliner et al., 2007; Penka et al., 2012), although psychotherapy with interpreters has been shown to be effective (Brandl et al., 2020; Brune et al., 2011; Fennig & Denov, 2021). Whether those psychotherapist trainees who encountered a language barrier in their treatment, but did not include a professional interpreter resorted to other ways of communication (e.g. translation apps), or whether those patients were left untreated, remains unanswered. At the same time, the numbers illustrate the inevitability of including professional interpreters to guarantee qualified healthcare for patients with limited language skills.

Participants with a personal migration background, as well as those with more frequent cross-cultural encounters in their everyday life, more often worked with interpreters outside training, which indicates an increased cultural openness that has also been found in earlier studies (Engle & Crowne, 2014; Holmes & O’Neill, 2012). Trainees showed a clear preference (94%) for working with interpreters on-site compared with via telephone or video. These results agree with studies that showed a preference for face-to-face consultations with interpreters in the MHC sector (Kluge et al., 2012) and the somatic healthcare sector (Mösko et al., 2013), whereas other healthcare services (e.g. emergency services) make more frequent use of quickly available telephone interpreting (Kluge et al., 2012).

Attitudes Towards Working with an Interpreter

The psychotherapist trainees’ attitudes towards working with professional interpreters are somewhat diverse. The majority of the sample agreed that including an interpreter is the only opportunity to conduct successful psychotherapy if a language barrier exists. It may, for example, facilitate the diagnostic process and prevent or address cultural misunderstandings. Concerning organisational efforts, more than two-thirds considered working with an interpreter more frequently if access were easier and financing clearly regulated, which is in line with earlier studies on reasons for a lack of interpreter services in German healthcare institutions (Dauvrin et al., 2012).

The need for training for interpreters working in a triad (Kluge & Kassim, 2006; Kuay et al., 2015; Leanza et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2005; Morina & Maier, 2009; O'Hara & Akinsulure-Smith, 2011) was supported by the current results. Half of the participants mentioned concerns of losing information and feared mistakes in translation. Translation mistakes have been shown to depend on the interpreter training; professional interpreters make fewer translation mistakes compared with ad hoc interpreters (Karliner et al., 2007; Vasquez & Javier, 1991) Thus, a minimal qualification standard for interpreters (Breitsprecher et al., 2020) may enhance treatment quality and at the same time alleviate therapists’ concerns.

In addition, more than half of the participants agreed they would work with an interpreter more frequently if they had received prior training or if there were a concrete manual for clinical–practical work with interpreters. Although most trainees disagreed on the concrete fear of feeling excluded when an interpreter is involved (Brisset et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2005; Morina & Maier, 2009), almost half mentioned feelings of discomfort when they could not fully understand what was being said in the patient's language. Therefore, the findings clearly indicate a need to include modules on working with interpreters in the training curricula for future psychotherapists and other healthcare professions (von Lersner et al., 2016; Mews et al., 2018).

In relation to this, the study participants reported motivation and interest in including the topic ‘working together with interpreters’ in psychotherapy training. In this domain, little training has been offered to date, although the relevance and need has been reported previously (Machleidt et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2005).

Limitations

This study has a few limitations that should be considered. First, it is likely that people with a migration background were overrepresented in this sample. Compared with the general German population at the time (24%) (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2017), the percentage of people with a migration background was slightly higher (27%). In addition, people with a migration background are still underrepresented at universities and in obtaining higher work-related qualifications (Haasen, 2000; Studentenwerk, 2012).The online survey was forwarded to all psychotherapy training institutes in Germany. It is possible that trainees with a migration background felt more drawn to the study topic and showed a greater willingness to participate in the study, owing to, for example, personal experiences or the experiences of close relatives. At the same time, the comparatively high percentage of trainees reporting previous experience in working with a professional interpreter indicates that those psychotherapist trainees with a special interest in multilingual psychotherapy and the use of interpreters were more likely to participate in the survey. However, given the otherwise similarity to other psychotherapy training samples (Nübling et al., 2019), we still consider our findings to be conclusive. Although the sample may have been more interested in this topic than average, our results show a significant gap in multilingual psychotherapy provision. It is likely that this gap is even greater, meaning that the general population of psychotherapists-in-training might not be as culturally open as our sample. An overestimation of this treatment gap, however, is unlikely given the current sample. Also, to obtain a valid instrument for measuring therapists’ attitudes towards working with interpreters, the self-developed AIHC-20 questionnaire needs further major revisions and validations. Because this was not the main focus of our study, the questionnaire could not be revised within the scope of this research project. However, because an instrument like this does not yet exist, we highly recommend its further development.

Conclusions

This explorative study on multilingualism in psychotherapists-in-training and their attitudes and experiences of working with interpreters sheds light on an understudied research field that is gaining increasing importance in society. Even if future psychotherapists are more linguistically and culturally diverse, that will not be enough to cover patients’ linguistic needs. So far, multilingual treatments are mainly offered in European languages, whereas the patients’ linguistic needs are mostly different and considerably more diverse. Although there already exist a substantial number of future psychotherapists who seem to be open to working with interpreters, this number is far from being sufficient to cover the actual demand. Therefore, patients speaking languages other than German or English are underserved in MHC services, so far. On the one hand, this means that more effort should be invested in training psychotherapists with greater linguistic diversity in the future. Heterogeneous language acquisition programmes could be offered as part of the studies and multilingual therapy could be practised early (e.g. through role-play). In addition, more egalitarian access to academic education would be a prerequisite to enabling more people with a migration background to study psychology/psychotherapy, which may indirectly promote multilingual therapy.

On the other hand, the use of interpreters in cases of a language barrier has to become a matter of course. Critical reasons underlying the overall too infrequent use of interpreters are related to access, financing and training. In Germany as well as many other countries, costs incurred in connection with interpreting services in the healthcare sector are not reimbursed and have to be covered by the practitioner or the patient. Services such as community interpreting services attempt to close this gap, but are far from being available everywhere and to a sufficient extent. In addition to standardised training courses for interpreters to ensure the quality of translation services, psychotherapist training on the inclusion of interpreters in psychotherapy is useful to reduce fears and strengthen confidence in dealing with the triadic situation. The current study shows that a large proportion of the psychotherapy trainees would be open to such training. In general, a personal migration background, prior work experience as a psychologist and cross-cultural encounters in everyday life are positively associated with serving patients with a language barrier and working with interpreters. This underlines, among other things, the need to increase diversity in the psychotherapeutic profession.

Implications for the Future

Owing to increasing migration flows, there is currently and will be a future need for more linguistically and culturally diverse psychotherapy globally. Psychotherapy students with a migration background should be supported in using their diverse language proficiencies throughout their studies and training. In addition, the second learned languages of trainees could be further promoted during study and training to strengthen their linguistic competences. To increase the use of professional interpreters in psychological treatments, political efforts are needed to improve access and funding. Access to and financing of professional interpreting is still mainly dependent on local initiatives; national regulations and financial support are missing. Psychometrically tested instruments assessing attitudes towards working with interpreters should be further developed. Furthermore, training on how to work effectively with an interpreter in (mental) healthcare services should be integrated into the curricula for trainees and videos (Hanft-Robert et al., 2023) could be helpful in this regard. In addition, training for supervisors should be provided to develop a culture of acceptance for this relatively new profession in MHC services. Finally, the occupational group of interpreters needs to recruit more professionals by establishing basic qualification programmes including an independent exam and an appropriate payment for their valuable work. Together, this will lead to greater use of professional interpreters and better access to and quality of MHC for people facing language barriers.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Vera Mohwinkel

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Author Biographies

Paula Bachmann, MSc Psychology, is a psychotherapist in training (therapy focus: systemic therapy) at IST-Berlin. In her research, she is interested in the topic of multilingualism in mental health care, especially psychotherapy.

Vera Mohwinkel, MSc Psychology, is a doctoral student on transcultural psychiatry and psychotherapy at Ulm University (Clinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy I, Weissenau) and a psychotherapist in training at IPP Bremen. Her research focuses on topics related to improving access and quality of mental health care for migrants and refugees and on transcultural suicidology.

Mike Mösko, PhD, is Professor of Clinical Psychology at University of Applied Science Magdeburg-Stendal and Head of the Psychosocial Migration Research Group at the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf. Professor Mösko researches on the topic of mental health services for migrants and refugees. He is currently the Principal Investigator of the international and interdisciplinary research project on ‘Multilingualism in providing quality mental health care to migrants – needs, resources and practices’ – MiM2 M. He is founder of the ‘Interdisciplinary Research Network on Multilingualism in Health Care’ (www.irmh.net). His published works focus mental health services research, conceptual, and methodological issues regarding minority populations, risk behaviours, and inequality of healthcare provision and outcome. He is also a psychological psychotherapist as well as honorary chairman of a non-profit organisation providing mental health services for refugees and migrants ()

References

Al Shamsi

Almutairi

A. G.

Al Mashrafi

Al Kalbani

(2020). Implications of language barriers for healthcare: A systematic review. Oman Medical Journal, 35(2), e122. https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2020.40

Anderson

T. S.

Karliner

L. S.

Lin

G. A.

(2020). Association of primary language and hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Medical Care, 58(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001245

Babitsch

Braun

Borde

David

(2008). Doctor's perception of doctor-patient relationships in emergency departments: What roles do gender and ethnicity play? BMC Health Services Research, 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-82

Bager-Charleson

Dewaele

J. M.

Costa

Kasap

(2017). A multilingual outlook: Can awareness-raising about multilingualism affect therapists’ practice? A mixed-method evaluation. Language and Psychoanalysis, 6(2), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.7565/landp.v6i2.1572

Bauer

A. M.

Chen

C. N.

Alegría

(2010). English language proficiency and mental health service use among Latino and Asian Americans with mental disorders. Medical Care, 48(12), 1097–1104. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181f80749

Brandl

E. J.

Schreiter

Schouler-Ocak

(2020). Are trained medical interpreters worth the cost? A review of the current literature on cost and cost-effectiveness. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 22(1), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-019-00915-4

Breitsprecher

Mueller

J. T.

Mösko

(2020). Quality standards and minimum requirements for the qualification of interpreters in social work settings in Germany. Universitätsklinikum Hamburg–Eppendorf. https://www.zwischensprachen.de/en/publications

Brisset

Leanza

Laforest

(2013). Working with interpreters in health care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. Patient Education and Counseling, 91(2), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.11.008

Brune

Eiroa-Orosa

F. J.

Fischer-Ortman

Delijaj

Haasen

(2011). Intermediated communication by interpreters in psychotherapy with traumatized refugees. International Journal of Culture and Mental Health, 4(2), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/17542863.2010.537821

10.

Costa

Dewaele

J. M.

(2012). Psychotherapy across languages: Beliefs, attitudes and practices of monolingual and multilingual therapists with their multilingual patients. Language and Psychoanalysis, 1, 19–41. https://doi.org/10.7565/landp.2012.0003

11.

Dauvrin

Lorant

Sandhu

Devillé

Dia

Dias

Gaddini

Ioannidis

Jensen

N. K.

Kluge

Mertaniemi

Puigpinós i Riera

Sárváry

Straßmayr

Stankunas

Soares

J. J.

Welbel

Priebe

, & EUGATE Study Group. (2012). Health care for irregular migrants: Pragmatism across Europe. A qualitative study. BMC research Notes, 5, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-99

12.

Dawson

G. C.

(2018). Years of clinical experience and therapist professional development: A literature review. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 48(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-017-9373-8

13.

Dew

K. N.

Turner

A. M.

Choi

Y. K.

Bosold

Kirchhoff

(2018). Development of machine translation technology for assisting health communication: A systematic review. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 85, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2018.07.018

14.

Dewaele

J. M.

Costa

(2013). Multilingual clients’ experience of psychotherapy. Language and Psychoanalysis, 2(2), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.7565/landp.2013.0005

15.

Engle

R. L.

Crowne

K. A.

(2014). The impact of international experience on cultural intelligence: An application of contact theory in a structured short-term programme. Human Resource Development International, 17(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2013.856206

16.

Fennig

Denov

(2021). Interpreters working in mental health settings with refugees: An interdisciplinary scoping review. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 91(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000518

17.

Gartner

Mösko

Becker

J. C.

Hanft-Robert

(2024). Barriers to use of interpreters in outpatient mental health care: Exploring the attitudes of psychotherapists. Transcultural Psychiatry, 61(2), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615241227337

18.

BAfF e.V. (2023). Psychosozialer Versorgungsbericht Deutschland 2023. https://www.baff-zentren.org/publikationen/versorgungsberichte-der-baff/

19.

Gogolin

Krüger-Potratz

(2012). Sprachenvielfalt–Fakten und Kontroversen. Journal for Primary Education Research, 6(2), 7–19.

20.

Haasen

(2000). Beurteilung psychischer Störungen in einer multikulturellen Gesellschaft. Lambertus-Verlag.

21.

Haasen

Yagdiran

Mass

Krausz

(2000). Potential for misdiagnosis among Turkish migrants with psychotic disorders: A clinical controlled study in Germany. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 101(2), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.90065.x

22.

Hall

B. J.

Shi

Garabiles

M. R.

Chan

E. W.

(2018). Correlates of expected eMental health intervention uptake among Filipino domestic workers in China. Global Mental Health, 5, e33. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2018.25

23.

Hanft-Robert

Emch-Fassnacht

Higgen

Pohontsch

Breitsprecher

Müller

Mueller

J. T.

Mösko

(2023). Training service providers to work effectively with interpreters through educational videos: A qualitative study. Interpreting, 25(2), 274–300. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00090.han

24.

Hanft-Robert

Mösko

(2024). Community interpreting in Germany: Results of a nationwide cross-sectional study among interpreters. BMC Public Health, 24, 1570. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18988-8

25.

Harpelund

Nielsen

S. S.

Krasnik

(2012). Self-perceived need for interpreter among immigrants in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 40(5), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494812454234

26.

Holmes

O’Neill

(2012). Developing and evaluating intercultural competence: Ethnographies of intercultural encounters. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(5), 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.04.010

27.

Jensen

R. S.

Nørregaard

T. M.

Carlsson

(2017). Effect of using an interpreter in psychotherapy. Ugeskrift for Laeger, 179(21), V01170069–V01170069.

28.

Karliner

L. S.

Jacobs

E. A.

Chen

A. H.

Mutha

(2007). Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(2), 727–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.x

29.

Kilian

Swartz

Hunt

Benjamin

Chiliza

(2021). When roles within interpreter-mediated psychiatric consultations speak louder than words. Transcultural Psychiatry, 58(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461520933768

30.

Kirkcaldy

Wittig

Furnham

Merbach

Siefen

R. G.

(2006). Migration und gesundheit. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz, 9(49), 873–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-006-0021-9

31.

Kluge

Bogic

Devillé

Greacen

Dauvrin

Dias

Gaddini

Koitzsch Jensen

Ioannidi-Kapolou

Mertaniemi

Puipcinós i Riera

Sandhu

Sarvary

Soares

J. J. F.

Stankunas

Straßmayr

Welbel

Heinz

Priebe

(2012). Health services and the treatment of immigrants: Data on service use, interpreting services and immigrant staff members in services across Europe. European Psychiatry, 27(S2), S56–S62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(12)75709-7

32.

Kluge

Kassim

(2006). Der dritte im raum “ chancen und schwierigkeiten in der zusammenarbeit mit sprach-und kulturmittlern in einem interkulturellen psychotherapeutischen setting (pp. 177–198). Transkulturelle Psychiatrie—Interkulturelle Psychotherapie: Interdisziplinäre Theorie und Praxis.

33.

Kuay

Chopra

Kaplan

Szwarc

(2015). Conducting psychotherapy with an interpreter. Australasian Psychiatry, 23(3), 282–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856215581294

34.

Lambert

J. E.

Alhassoon

O. M.

(2015). Trauma-focused therapy for refugees: Meta-analytic findings. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000048

35.

Lay

C. S.

Lyons

H. Z.

Cuppari

Kennedy-Dunn

Wadia

Johnson

A. J.

Kirkhart

(2024). Perceptions and experiences of psychotherapy among forced migrants with limited English proficiency. The Counseling Psychologist, 52(5), 802. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000241240165

36.

Leanza

Miklavcic

Boivin

Rosenberg

(2013). Working with interpreters. In In cultural consultation: Encountering the other in mental health care (pp. 89–114). Springer.

37.

Lebano

Hamed

Bradby

Gil-Salmerón

Durá-Ferrandis

Garcés-Ferrer

Azzedine

Riza

Karnaki

Zota

Linos

(2020). Migrants’ and refugees’ health status and healthcare in Europe: A scoping literature review. BMC Public Health, 20, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08749-8

38.

Lebrun

L. A.

(2012). Effects of length of stay and language proficiency on health care experiences among immigrants in Canada and the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 74(7), 1062–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.031

39.

Leiner

D. J.

(2024). SoSci Survey (Version 3.5.02) [Computer software]. https://www.soscisurvey.de

40.

Dai

Gao

(2019). The mental health and depression of rural-to-urban migrant workers compared to non-migrant workers in Shanghai: A cross-sectional study. International Health, 11(Supplement_1), S55–S63. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihz081

41.

Machleidt

Garlipp

Calliess

I. T.

(2005). Die 12 Sonnenberger Leitlinien—Handlungs-impulse für die psychiatrisch-psychotherapeutische Versorgung von Migranten. Migration und seelische Gesundheit, 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27042-6_20

42.

Mews

Schuster

Vajda

Lindtner-Rudolph

Schmidt

L. E.

Bösner

Güzelsoy

Kressing

Hallal

Peters

Gestmann

Hempel

Grützmann

Sievers

Knipper

(2018). Cultural competence and global health: Perspectives for medical education–Position paper of the GMA committee on cultural competence and global health. GMS Journal for Medical Education, 35(3). https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001174

43.

Miller

K. E.

Martell

Z. L.

Pazdirek

Caruth

Lopez

(2005). The role of interpreters in psychotherapy with refugees: An exploratory study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.75.1.27

44.

Morina

Maier

(2009). Lost in translation?–psychotherapy using interpreters. Psychotherapie, psychosomatik. Medizinische Psychologie, 60(3-4), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1202271

45.

Mösko

Raczek

Schilgen

Bollmann

Icks

Aberle

Berger

Bührig

Wiltink

Mohwinkel

Schulz

(2024). Language barriers in German outpatient diabetes care: A cross-sectional study on multilingual treatment and the use of interpreters. Journal of Public Health, 33(12), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-024-02225-y

46.

Mösko

M. O.

Gil-Martinez

Schulz

(2013). Cross-cultural opening in German outpatient mental healthcare service: An exploratory study of structural and procedural aspects. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 20(5), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1785

47.

Njeru

J. W.

DeJesus

R. S.

St. Sauver

Rutten

L. J.

Jacobson

D. J.

Wilson

Wieland

M. L.

(2016). Utilization of a mental health collaborative care model among patients who require interpreter services. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 10, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-016-0044-z

48.

Nübling

Niedermeier

Hartmann

Murzen

Petzina

(2019). Psychotherapeutinnen in ausbildung (PiA) in den abschnitten praktische tätigkeit I und II-ergebnisse der PiA-studie 2019. Psychotherapeutenjournal, 2/2020, 128–137.

49.

O'Hara

Akinsulure-Smith

A. M.

(2011). Working with interpreters: Tools for clinicians conducting psychotherapy with forced immigrants. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, 7(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/17479891111176287

50.

Orlinsky

Rønnestad

M. H.

Ambühl

Willutzki

Botersman

J. F.

Cierpka

Davis

(1999). Psychotherapists’ assessments of their development at different career levels. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 36(3), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087772

51.

Pavlenko

(2006). Bilingual minds: emotional experience, expression and representation (Bilingual education and bilingualism, 56). Multilingual Matters.

52.

Penka, S., Kluge, U., Vardar, A., Borde, T., & Ingleby, D. (2012). The concept of “intercultural opening”: The development of an assessment tool for the appraisal of its current implementation in the mental health care system. European Psychiatry, 27(S2), S63–S69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(12)75710-3

53.

Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. (2017). Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund - Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2017 . HIS-Institut für Hochschulforschung.

54.

Studentenwerk Deutschland. (2012). Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage der Studierenden in Deutschland 2012. HIS-Institut für Hochschulforschung.

55.

Swartz

Kilian

Twesigye

Attah

Chiliza

(2014). Language, culture, and task shifting–an emerging challenge for global mental health. Global Health Action, 7(1), 23433. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.23433

56.

ten Thije

J. D.

(2018). Receptive multilingualism. In D. Singleton, & L. Aronin (Eds.), Twelve lectures on multilingualism (MM Textbooks). Multilingual Matters.

57.

Vasquez

Javier

R. A.

(1991). The problem with interpreters: Communicating with Spanish-speaking patients. Psychiatric Services, 42(2), 163–165. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.42.2.163

58.

Verkerk

Fuller

J. M.

Huiskes

Schüppert

(2023). Expression and interpretation of emotions in multilingual psychotherapy: A literature review. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 23(3), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12650

59.

Villalobos

B. T.

Bridges

A. J.

Anastasia

E. A.

Ojeda

C. A.

Hernandez Rodriguez

Gomez

(2016). Effects of language concordance and interpreter use on therapeutic alliance in Spanish-speaking integrated behavioral health care patients. Psychological Services, 13(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000051

60.

von Lersner

Baschin

Wormeck

Mösko

M. O.

(2016). Guidelines for trainings in inter-/transcultural competence for psychotherapists. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 66(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1564120

61.

Wagner

(2018, 02.08.). 250 Tage Sprachmittlerpool - Modellprojekt zur Integration von SprachmittlerInnen in die ambulante psychotherapeutisch-psychiatrische Versorgung: Erste Ergebnisse. Gemeinsames Symposium der Psychotherapeutenkammer Hamburg, Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband Hamburg und SEGEMI e.V., Kassenärztliche Vereinigung Hamburg.

62.

World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053