Background Growth of the foreign-born population in the U. (RSMI 71%, U&C 64%, (%) Results by Intention to Treat For satisfaction with physician communication/care, patients randomized to receive RSMI were more likely than those receiving U&C to rate their physicians very well in treating them with respect (71% RSMI vs. 64% U&C, p?0.05) (Table?2). Patients also rated RSMI as better than U&C at protecting their privacy (RSMI 51% vs. U&C 38%, p?0.05) (Table?3). The mean satisfaction with interpreter score was higher for patients in the RSMI group (RSMI 0.528 vs. U&C 0.462, p?0.05) as well. There were no other significant differences between the groups. Table?2 Satisfaction with Physician Communication/Care, by Interpreting Method Table?3 Satisfaction with Interpretation, by Interpreting Method Results by Actual Interpreting Method Received In the analysis of satisfaction with physician communication/care by actual 1194961-19-7 interpreting method received, patients in the RSMI group were more likely than those in the U&C trained 1194961-19-7 interpreter group to rate their physicians very well in treating them with respect (70% RSMI vs. 57% U&C trained, p?0.05) and to think their physicians understood them very well (45% RSMI vs. 35% U&C trained, p?0.05) (Table?2). The mean composite satisfaction with physician communication/care score was also higher for patients 1194961-19-7 in the RSMI group (RSMI 0.518 vs. U&C trained 0.436, p?0.05). For most measures of satisfaction with physician communication/care, however, patients in the language-concordant group rated physicians more highly than patients in both the RSMI and U&C trained groups. For interpreter satisfaction, patients felt RSMI protected their privacy better than U&C trained interpreters (49% RSMI vs. 35% U&C trained, p?0.05). There were no significant differences between the groups among the other measures. (Table?3) Tables?4 and ?and55 show composite physician communication/care and interpreter satisfaction scores regressed on the randomized method of interpretation, and on actual interpreting method received. The intent-to-treat analysis, which included patients who did not work with any interpreter, did not illustrate a significant association between RSMI and the composite physician communication/care satisfaction score (Table?4). Actual receipt of RSMI, however, was significantly associated with increased satisfaction with physician communication/care compared to receipt of U&C trained interpretation (Table?5). Controlling for other potential explanatory factors (such as a patients gender, primary language, self-reported health status, or enrollment site) did not significantly reduce this association (coefficient?=?0.100, p?=?0.010). The coefficient in this context means that an encounter utilizing RSMI should lead to a satisfaction score that is 10 points higher out of 100 than the average encounter utilizing PCMI or RCMI with trained interpreters. There were no significant differences between groups in satisfaction with interpreter scores 1194961-19-7 in either the intent-to-treat analysis (Table?4) or in the analysis of actual interpreting method received (Table?5). Table?4 Linear Regression Analysis of Satisfaction with Physician Communication/Care and Satisfaction with Interpretation Scores, Intent-to-treat Analysis Table?5 Linear Regression Analysis of Satisfaction with Physician Communication/Care and Satisfaction with Interpretation Scores, by Actual Interpreting Method Received CONCLUSIONS With the large growth of the foreign-born population in the United States, the study of interpreting strategies outcomes for language-discordant encounters is of great importance. The introduction of RSMI, with its potential for more efficient interpreting because of its simultaneity, compelled studying its impact in relation to U&C interpreting. In this randomized controlled PYST1 trial of RSMI vs. U&C interpreting, there were a few areas in which patients in the RSMI group were more satisfied than in the U&C group. Patients felt they were treated with more respect by their physicians and that their privacy.