Technology and social media use by oncology patients with limited english proficiency at a safety net hospital.

Abstract

e18533 Background: Prior studies have shown that when patients with cancer engage with social media, they have positive outcomes, including clinical trial participation, volunteerism and advocacy, and diminished levels of anxiety. However, active users of social media tend to be white, well-educated, and of higher socioeconomic status. Little is known about the use of technology and social media by underserved oncology populations, particularly patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). We sought to characterize current technology use by patients at Olive View—UCLA Medical Center (OVMC), a safety net hospital in Los Angeles County. Methods: We developed an anonymous online survey (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) comprised of 39 questions. The survey was administered, via touchscreen tablets from January 2020 through January 2021, to a convenience sample of patients seen in OVMC’s outpatient medical oncology clinic. The survey was available in English and Spanish, and we excluded patients who were not fluent in either language. Patients were categorized as having LEP versus English proficiency (EP) by self-assessment, on a 5-point Likert scale, of their comfort in speaking English. Differences between the LEP and EP groups were assessed using Pearson’s chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Results: Of 113 patients who were offered the survey, 10 (9%) declined participation because of illiteracy in their primary language or inability to use a tablet. Reponses were recorded for 50 patients with LEP and 53 with EP. The LEP and EP groups, respectively, were similar in their representation of women (62% and 64%) and mean age (58 years and 51 years). High school completion rates were 32% for the LEP group and 70% for the EP group. A higher proportion of the LEP group identified as Hispanic/Latinx (84%) compared to the EP group (58%). The LEP group was less likely than the EP group to have internet access (63% vs. 98%, P< 0.01). However, among patients with internet access, social media use was similar in the LEP and EP groups (65% vs. 71%, P= 0.7). Facebook was the most used platform by the LEP (22%) and EP (32%) groups; other platforms (e.g., Twitter, Instagram) were used by very few respondents. The LEP group was less likely than the EP group to have activated the OVMC online patient portal (19% vs. 47%, P< 0.01) and less likely to perceive websites as helpful for learning about clinical trials (30% vs. 53%, P= 0.03). Conclusions: A notable proportion of safety net oncology patients at OVMC do not engage with tablet technology because of illiteracy or lack of comfort with touchscreens. Patients with LEP are less likely to have internet access, but those with access use social media about as often as patients with EP, and prefer Facebook over other platforms. For patients with LEP, engagement efforts, including clinical trial outreach, should continue to include non–internet-based resources in patients’ native languages.