Support factors for sustaining interpreters' wellbeing and professional functioning: a fuzzy Delphi study

BackgroundInterpreters work under substantial cognitive, emotional, physical, and organizational demands, yet evidence on the resources supporting their wellbeing and professional functioning remains dispersed across settings and modalities. This study developed and prioritized a multilevel support framework through expert consensus.MethodsA literature-informed framework comprising four dimensions and 31 candidate sub-themes was developed through a targeted narrative review, thematic synthesis, and content and face review. Of 20 experts invited, 15 completed an online questionnaire using a seven-point importance scale. Ratings were analyzed using the Fuzzy Delphi Method according to predefined consensus and retention criteria.ResultsAll four dimensions and 27 candidate sub-themes met the retention criteria, yielding a sub-theme retention rate of 87.10%. Within the expert panel, professional preparedness, agency, and sustainable competence received the strongest dimension-level endorsement (A = 0.838). Organizational, employment, and occupational health support ranked fourth at the dimension level (A = 0.693), yet contained the most strongly endorsed candidate overall, manageable workload, scheduling, breaks, recovery time, and assignment rotation (A = 0.902). This was followed by two D2 candidates: assignment-specific contextual and terminological preparation (A = 0.860) and decision latitude (A = 0.833). Four candidates fell below the expert-agreement criterion (60.00%−73.33%): trauma- and emotion-informed interpreting competence, inclusion as a member of the service team, confidential professional supervision, and acoustic and hearing safety. Each satisfied the mean-threshold and defuzzification criteria. They were thus excluded from the proposed cross-context core and warrant context-specific reassessment.ConclusionThe resulting panel-endorsed content framework advances a multilevel conceptualization of individual, professional, relational, and organizational resources and provides a structured basis for interpreter education, professional support, organizational policy, and occupational-health planning. While the rankings are confined to the relative priorities of this 15-member panel and provide no basis for a universal or causal hierarchy, the framework offers a foundation for subsequent measurement, validation, and implementation research involving more diverse panels across interpreting settings and modalities.