Dissemination of validated health literacy videos: A tailored approach.

Abstract

e18505 Background: Previously, we showed that chemotherapy and precision medicine terminology are remarkably difficult for patients to understand. Therefore, we developed short, animated videos explaining key terminology and demonstrated that they significantly improved understanding. These videos, though effective and published, including freely downloadable, will only be helpful if appropriately disseminated. In the past, even after a video-based educational tool for prostate cancer was proven effective for improving patient comprehension, no dissemination plan was implemented due to copyright issues. Therefore, in order to propel these validated health literacy videos from the academic community into clinic workflow, we aimed to determine the best dissemination method at two different hospitals with disparate populations just six miles apart: an underserved, inner-city hospital and a higher SES hospital. Methods: The dissemination interview was developed in collaboration with an expert Intervention Development, Dissemination, and Implementation team. The draft was cognitively tested with physicians and staff who were not oncologists and finalized. With consent, interviews were conducted with both Winship Cancer Institute and Grady Memorial Hospital providers (GMH). All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analyzed using a semantic content analysis method. Results: Eleven providers at GMH and 22 providers at Winship were interviewed, reaching saturation of themes. 72% (n = 8) of the GMH providers felt that the best place for patients to view the videos was in the clinic, compared to 27% (n = 6) of the Winship providers. 68% (n = 15) of the Winship providers stated an app would be the most useful format, compared to 27% (n = 3) at GMH. All agreed that it would be useful for the patient’s family or caregiver to view the videos (GMH = 100%, Winship = 72%), that translation of the videos to Spanish would be beneficial (GMH = 90%, Winship = 63%), and that a nurse would be best to introduce the videos (GMH = 81%, Winship = 68%). Conclusions: Educational materials explaining complicated oncology treatment terminology enhance patient-centered care, yet without proper dissemination these crucial educational tools may never reach the intended patient population. The hospitals examined in this study served significantly different patient populations and the dissemination recommendations were quite different. Providers believed that the underserved patients needed the videos accessible in the clinic whereas providers serving higher SES patients thought that a web-based app, requiring a smart device or internet access, was more appropriate. Our study shows that it is crucial to ensure that educational materials are accessible to all populations, not just those with more means. Without a location-specific dissemination plan, educational tools may only further exacerbate disparities, rather than alleviate them.