Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Often electronic tools are built with English proficient (EP) patients in mind. Cancer patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience gaps in care and are at risk for excess toxic effects if they are unable to effectively communicate with their care team. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether electronic patient-reported outcome tools (ePROs) built to improve health outcomes for EP patients might also be acceptable for LEP patients in the context of oral cancer-directed therapies (OCDT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study was conducted at a single National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. In 2019, English-speaking and Spanish-speaking LEP patients with cancer receiving oral chemotherapies were recruited to participate in a qualitative focus group examining patient attitudes toward ePROs and electronic tools that are used to manage adherence and symptoms related to oral therapies. Six focus groups were held for EP patients and 1 for Spanish-speaking LEP patients. LEP was defined as patients who self-identified as needing an interpreter to navigate the health care system. Data analysis was performed April through June of 2019. EXPOSURES: Enrolled patients participated in a focus group lasting approximately 90 minutes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The perspectives of patients with cancer treated with oral chemotherapies on integrating ePROs into their care management. RESULTS: Among the 46 participants included in the study, 46 (100%) were White, 10 (22%) were Latinx Spanish-speaking, 43 (93%) were female, and 37 (80%) were aged at least 50 years or older. Among the 6 focus groups with 6 to 8 EP patients (ranging from 6 to 8 participants) and 1 focus group with 10 Spanish-speaking LEP patients, this qualitative study found that EP and LEP patients had different levels of acceptability of using technology and ePRO tools to manage their OCDT. EP patients felt generally positive toward OCDT and were not generally interested in using electronic tools to manage their care. LEP patients generally disliked OCDT and welcomed the use of technology for health management, particularly when addressing gaps in symptom management by their oncology clinicians. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although most electronic interventions target EP patients, these findings reveal the willingness of LEP patients to participate in technology-based interventions. Expanding ePROs to LEP patients may help to manage gaps in communication about treatment and potential adverse events because of the willingness of LEP patients to use ePRO tools to manage their health. This qualitative assessment is a strategic step in determining the resources needed to narrow the digital health gap and extend the value of PROs to the LEP oncology population.