Background Migrants and refugees experience a higher prevalence of mental disorders than host populations, and language discordance undermines care from help-seeking through diagnosis, adherence and outcomes. The WHO Refugee and Migrant Health: Global Competency Standards for Health Workers set broad behavioural expectations for individual health workers but do not operationalise language-discordant care, leaving clinicians and administrators without measurable standards. Objective To develop an international, consensus-based competency framework for healthcare professionals working in language-discordant mental health care, paired with a priority-versus-feasibility gap analysis to direct policy investment. Methods We conducted an international modified e-Delphi study between May and October 2025, reported in accordance with the ACCORD and CONFERD-HP guidelines. Evidence-derived items, organised into five domains and stratified for healthcare providers and administrators, were rated for priority and feasibility; consensus required at least 75% "Mandatory" agreement. Results In Round 1, 101 experts from 24 countries participated; 51 (50.5%) completed Round 2 with non-differential attrition, and 16 ratified borderline items in Round 3. Seventy-six items reached consensus across People-Centred Care (19), Communication (27), Collaboration (6), Evidence-Informed Practice (7) and Personal Conduct (17). The widest gaps fell in systemic, infrastructure-dependent competencies, including 24-hour interpreter access and interpreter-coincident scheduling (mean gap 29.6 percentage points; 33 items >30 points). Conclusions This first international competency framework defines the reciprocal behaviours clinicians and administrators must meet in language-discordant (mental) health care. Paired with a gap analysis, it offers a behaviourally specific basis for training and accreditation and shows where policy investment is most needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Forray et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: