Improving Assessment and Learning Environments for Graduate Medical Trainees to Advance Healthcare Language Equity.

Language-appropriate care is critical for equitable, high-quality health care, but educational standards to assure graduate medical trainees are prepared to give such care are lacking. Detailed guidance for graduate medical education is provided by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education through the following: (1) an assessment framework for competencies, subcompetencies, and milestones for trainees and (2) the Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) Pathways for assessment of trainees' learning environments. These tools do not include a robust framework to evaluate trainees' abilities to offer language-appropriate care. They also do not address the learning environment's potential to support such care. A multidisciplinary group of linguistic, medical, and educational experts drafted a new subcompetency with milestones and an expanded CLER Pathway to highlight the importance of equitable care for patients who prefer languages other than English. These resources offer residency and fellowship programs tools to guide assessment, curriculum development, and learning-environment improvements related to language-appropriate care. Recognizing that programs have unique needs and resources, we propose a range of initial actions to address language equity. A focus on language diversity in the learning environment can have a broad and lasting impact on care quality, patient safety, and health equity.

Associations Between Race/Ethnicity, Language, and Enrollment on Cancer Research Studies.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine whether differences in patients' race/ethnicity, preferred language, and other factors were associated with patient enrollment in oncology research studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of all adults (>18 and ≤90) seen at a large, metropolitan cancer center from 2005 to 2015, examining if enrollment to a research study, varied by race/ethnicity, preferred language, comorbidities, gender, and age. RESULTS: A total of 233 604 patients were available for initial analysis. Of these, 93 278 (39.9%) were enrolled in a research protocol (therapeutic and non-therapeutic studies). Patients who self-reported their race/ethnicity as Native, Other, Unknown, or Refuse to Answer were less likely to be enrolled on a study. Patients with one or more comorbidities, and those whose preferred language was English, were more likely to be enrolled on a research study. A logistic regression model showed that, although Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to have one or more comorbidities and had a higher proportion of their subset selecting English as their preferred language, they were less likely to be enrolled on a study, than our largest population, Non-Hispanic/White patients. CONCLUSIONS: We identified differences in research study enrollment based on preferred language, and within race/ethnicity categories including Native-Populations, Other, Unknown or Refuse to Answer compared to Non-Hispanic/White patients. We also highlighted the lower odds of enrollment among Non-Hispanic/Black patients, in the setting of factors such as comorbidities and English language preference, which were otherwise found to be positive predictors of enrollment. Further investigation is needed to design targeted interventions to reduce disparities in oncology research study enrollment, with particular focus on language diversity.

Validity Evidence for the Physician Oral Language Observation Matrix as a Measure of Medical Spanish Proficiency.

BACKGROUND: The lack of a standardized language assessment process for medical students and physicians communicating in a non-English language threatens healthcare quality and safety. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of a new rating tool, the Physician Oral Language Observation Matrix (POLOM)™, in assessing medical students' oral communication with Spanish-speaking standardized patients (SPs). DESIGN: POLOM scores were compared to measures of student medical Spanish proficiency to examine convergent validity and to measures of clinical performance to examine concurrent/criterion validity. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two students at two schools completed SP encounters between January 2021 and April 2022, and POLOM raters scored the videorecorded performances between January and June 2022. MAIN MEASURES: Two approaches to generating POLOM total scores were investigated: rater average and strict consensus. Convergent validity was examined via the POLOM's correlations with (1) the phone-based Clinician Cultural and Linguistic Assessment (CCLA) and (2) the self-rated Interagency Language Roundtable scale for healthcare (ILR-H). Concurrent/criterion validity was examined via correlations with (1) the Comunicación y Habilidades Interpersonales (CAI) scale, (2) a checklist completed by the SP, and (3) a faculty rating of the student's post-encounter clinical note. Pearson's correlations of r ≥ 0.5 and r ≥ 0.2 were considered evidence of convergent validity and concurrent/criterion validity, respectively. KEY RESULTS: Both rater average and strict consensus POLOM scores were strongly correlated with ILR-H (r = 0.72) and CCLA (r ≥ 0.60), providing evidence of convergent validity. The POLOM was substantially correlated with the CAI (r ≥ 0.29), the SP Checklist (r = 0.32), and the faculty scoring of the student's clinical note (r ≥ 0.24), providing concurrent/criterion validity evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The POLOM has demonstrated evidence of convergent and concurrent/criterion validity as a measure of medical students' Spanish proficiency during SP encounters. Additional research is needed to evaluate how the POLOM can be implemented with resident and practicing physicians, applied to other health professions, and adapted to other languages.

Language-Concordant Care: a Qualitative Study Examining Implementation of Physician Non-English Language Proficiency Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Language concordance can increase access to care for patients with language barriers and improve patient health outcomes. However, systematically assessing and tracking physician non-English language skills remains uncommon in most health systems. This is a missed opportunity for health systems to maximize language-concordant care. OBJECTIVE: To determine barriers and facilitators to participation in non-English language proficiency assessment among primary care physicians. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven fully and partially bilingual primary care physicians from a large academic health system with a language certification program (using a clinician oral proficiency interview). APPROACH: Interviews aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in non-English language assessment. Two researchers independently and iteratively coded transcripts using a thematic analysis approach with constant comparison to identify themes. KEY RESULTS: Most participants were women (N= 9; 82%). Participants reported proficiency in Cantonese, Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish. All fully bilingual participants (n=5) had passed the language assessment; of the partially bilingual participants (n=6), four did not test, one passed with marginal proficiency, and one did not pass. Three themes emerged as barriers to assessment participation: (1) beliefs about the negative consequences (emotional and material) of not passing the test, (2) time constraints and competing demands, and (3) challenging test format and structure. Four themes emerged as facilitators to increase assessment adoption: (1) messaging consistent with professional ethos, (2) organizational culture that incentivizes certification, (3) personal empowerment about language proficiency, and (4) individuals championing certification. CONCLUSIONS: To increase language assessment participation and thus ensure quality language-concordant care, health systems must address the identified barriers physicians experience and leverage potential facilitators. Findings can inform health system interventions to standardize the requirements and process, increase transparency, provide resources for preparation and remediation, utilize messaging focused on patient care quality and safety, and incentivize participation.

A Pragmatic Assessment of Google Translate for Emergency Department Instructions.

BACKGROUND: Because many hospitals have no mechanism for written translation, ED providers resort to the use of automated translation software, such as Google Translate (GT) for patient instructions. A recent study of discharge instructions in Spanish and Chinese suggested that accuracy rates of Google Translate (GT) were high. STUDY OBJECTIVE: To perform a pragmatic assessment of GT for the written translation of commonly used ED discharge instructions in seven commonly spoken languages. METHODS: A prospective assessment of the accuracy of GT for 20 commonly used ED discharge instruction phrases, as evaluated by a convenience sample of native speakers of seven commonly spoken languages (Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, Armenian, and Farsi). Translations were evaluated using a previously validated matrix for scoring machine translation, containing 5-point Likert scales for fluency, adequacy, meaning, and severity, in addition to a dichotomous assessment of retention of the overall meaning. RESULTS: Twenty volunteers evaluated 400 google translated discharge statements. Volunteers were 50% female and spoke Spanish (5), Armenian (2), Chinese (3), Tagalog (4), Korean (2), and Farsi (2). The overall meaning was retained for 82.5% (330/400) of the translations. Spanish had the highest accuracy rate (94%), followed by Tagalog (90%), Korean (82.5%), Chinese (81.7%), Farsi (67.5%), and Armenian (55%). Mean Likert scores (on a 5-point scale) were high for fluency (4.2), adequacy (4.4), meaning (4.3), and severity (4.3) but also varied. CONCLUSION: GT for discharge instructions in the ED is inconsistent between languages and should not be relied on for patient instructions.

Patient Perspectives on the Quality of Professional Interpretation: Results from LASI Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of professional interpretation is associated with improvements in overall healthcare of patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). For these patients, it is important to understand whether quality of professional interpretation in-person is preserved using remote interpretation modalities (video-conferencing, telephone). OBJECTIVE: To compare patient perceptions of professional interpretation quality delivered in-person, via video-conferencing, or via telephone during in-person primary care clinical visits. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a telephone survey conducted within 1 week after a primary care visit PARTICIPANTS: The 326 Chinese and Latino survey participants with LEP who reported using a professional interpreter-in-person, video medical conferencing (VMI), or telephone-during their visit MAIN MEASURES: Six items about the quality of interpretation: five detailed items scored as a scale, and a sixth overall quality item (range 1 = poor to 5 = excellent) KEY RESULTS: While there was a range for all modalities, most patients reported "very good" or "excellent" quality on both the scale and the overall single quality measure. In adjusted analysis, patients rated VMI quality the highest, followed by in-person and then telephone on both the 5-item scale (adjusted means: VMI 3.91, in-person 3.86, telephone 3.73) and the overall single quality item (adjusted means: VMI 3.94, in-person 3.85, telephone 3.83); however, no two-way comparisons were statistically significant (p values ranged 0.15-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight that, overall, the interpretation experience among patients who used any type of professional interpretation was positive, and that the quality found with in-person interpretation is preserved for remote modalities. Health systems should consider a multimodality approach to interpreter service provision including options for accessing professional interpreters via all three modalities based on communication and access needs.

Supply and Demand: Association Between Non-English Language-Speaking First Year Resident Physicians and Areas of Need in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Over 25 million US inhabitants are limited English proficient (LEP). It is unknown whether physicians fluent in non-English languages are training in geographic areas with the highest proportion of LEP people. Diversity of language ability in the physician workforce is an important complement to language assistance services for providing quality care to LEP patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether non-English language-speaking resident physicians matched in the geographic areas where language skills are needed. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Postgraduate medical training applicants to the Association of American Medical College's Electronic Residency Application Service in 2013-2014 (n = 50,766). We included data from the Graduate Medical Education Track database, mapped against American Community Survey data. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed the geographic alignment of non-English language-speaking resident physicians relative to the distribution of the LEP-speaking population. KEY RESULTS: While 37% of resident physicians spoke at least one non-English language, in most cases the languages they spoke were not those in greatest need by the US LEP population. LEP speakers' potential exposure to non-English language-speaking residents varied. For Spanish, the language with the lowest national resident physician to Spanish LEP patient ratio, the ratio was most favorable in New York at 23.7/100,000 LEP population versus 5.1 in Los Angeles. For Tagalog, the group with the highest geographic mismatch, the ratio was 70.4 in New York but 0 in San Diego, San Jose, and Seattle. Among the top five LEP languages in the USA, Chinese-speaking resident physicians were the most geographically matched. CONCLUSIONS: We found considerable misalignment of the geographic distribution of non-English language-speaking resident physicians relative to the distribution of the LEP-speaking population. Residency programs in areas of high need could consider better matching the non-English language needs of their community with the language abilities of the resident physicians they are recruiting.

The Use of a Mobile Application to Increase Access to Interpreters for Cancer Patients With Limited English Proficiency: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Language barriers can influence the quality of health care and health outcomes of limited English proficient patients with cancer. The use of medical interpretation services can be a valuable asset for improving communications in emergency care settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a mobile translation application increased call frequency to interpreter services among providers in an Urgent Care Center at a comprehensive cancer center and to assess provider satisfaction of the mobile application. RESEARCH DESIGN: Prospective pre-post nonrandomized intervention of a mobile translation application with access to an over the phone interpreter (OPI) service at the push of a button and poststudy satisfaction survey. SUBJECTS: Sixty-five clinicians working at the Urgent Care Center in a cancer center in New York City. MEASURES: Mean call frequency to OPI services, tested by the nonparametric Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test, and self-reported provider satisfaction descriptives. RESULTS: The mobile application contributed to increasing the frequency of phone calls to OPI services during the intervention period (mean=12.8; P=0.001) as compared with the preintervention period (mean=4.3), and showed continued use during the postintervention period (mean=5.7). Most clinicians were satisfied with the use of the mobile application and access to the OPI services. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that mobile application tools contribute to increasing the use and ease of access to language services. This has the potential to improve the quality of communication between medical providers and limited English proficient patients in the delivery of cancer care in urgent care settings.

Navigating Language Barriers: A Systematic Review of Patient Navigators' Impact on Cancer Screening for Limited English Proficient Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature on the impact of patient navigators on cancer screening for limited English proficient (LEP) patients. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO via OVID, Web of Science, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Scopus) through 8 May 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles in this review had: (1) a study population of LEP patients eligible for breast, cervical or colorectal cancer screenings, (2) a patient navigator intervention to provide services prior to or during cancer screening, (3) a comparison of the patient navigator intervention to either a control group or another intervention, and (4) language-specific outcomes related to the patient navigator intervention. STUDY APPRAISAL: We assessed the quality of the articles using the Downs and Black Scale. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and evaluated the screening rates for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer in 15 language populations. Fourteen studies resulted in improved screening rates for LEP patients between 7 and 60%. There was great variability in the patient navigation interventions evaluated. Training received by navigators was not reported in nine of the studies and no studies assessed the language skills of the patient navigators in English or the target language. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by the variability in study designs and limited reporting on patient navigator interventions, which reduces the ability to draw conclusions on the full effect of patient navigators. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found evidence that navigators improved screening rates for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening for LEP patients. Future studies should systematically collect data on the training curricula for navigators and assess their English and non-English language skills in order to identify ways to reduce disparities for LEP patients.

Preoperative consent for patients with limited English proficiency.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is important for limited English proficient (LEP) patients undergoing surgery, as many surgical procedures are complicated, making patient comprehension difficult even without language barriers. The study objectives were to (1) understand surgeons' preoperative consenting process with LEP patients, (2) examine how surgeons self assess their non-English language proficiency levels using a standardized scale, and (3) identify the relationship between self assessed non-English language proficiency and surgeons' self-reported use of interpreters during preoperative informed consent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A thirty-two item survey assessing surgeons' reported preoperative informed consent process, with questions related to demographics, level of medical training, non-English language skills and their clinical use, language learning experiences, and hypothetical scenarios with LEP patients. RESULTS: Surgeons who were not fluent in non-English languages reported they often used those limited skills to obtain informed consent from their LEP patients. Many surgeons reported relying on bilingual hospital staff members, family members, and/or minors to serve as ad-hoc interpreters when obtaining informed consent. If a professional interpreter was not available in a timely manner, surgeons more frequently reported using ad-hoc interpreters or their own nonfluent language skills. Surgeons reported deferring to patient and family preferences when deciding whether to use professional interpreters and applied different thresholds for different clinical scenarios when deciding whether to use professional interpreters. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons reported relying on their own non-English language skills, bilingual staff, and family and friends of patients to obtain informed consent from LEP patients, suggesting that further understanding of barriers to professional interpreter use is needed.

Uptake of genetic testing by relatives of lynch syndrome probands: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening of persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome can yield substantial benefits at acceptable costs, presuming sufficient uptake of genetic testing by first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the frequency of and factors associated with genetic testing of first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. METHODS: We searched 4 databases (CINAHL, PsycInfo, PUBMED, and SCOPUS) for articles published through May 2011 reporting uptake of genetic testing by relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. Two investigators independently screened articles to determine whether they met inclusion criteria; data were collected on study population, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. A narrative, qualitative systematic review was performed. RESULTS: We identified 1258 potentially relevant articles; 533 underwent full-text review, and 8 were included in the final analysis. Of first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands, 52% or less received genetic testing. For each proband, 3.6 or fewer relatives underwent genetic testing. Demographic factors (age <50 years, female sex, parenthood, level of education, employment, participation in medical studies), psychological factors (lack of depressive symptoms), and possibly family history (greater number of relatives with cancer) were associated with uptake of genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing appears to be underutilized by first-degree relatives of patients with Lynch syndrome. The clinical benefit and economic feasibility of screening persons with colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome depend on optimizing family-wide uptake of genetic testing. Future research and clinical efforts should focus on ways to overcome barriers to genetic testing.

Development of a Tool to Assess Medical Oral Language Proficiency.

PURPOSE: To communicate with linguistically diverse patients, medical students and physicians often use their non-English-language skills. However, there is no standard protocol to determine whether those skills are adequate before patient care. This causes many physicians, institutions, educators, and learners to forgo non-English-language proficiency assessment altogether. The purpose of this study is to report on the development, refinement, and interrater reliability of the Physician Oral Language Observation Matrix (POLOM), a rater-based tool assessing 6 language skill categories observed during clinical interactions: comprehension, fluency/fluidity, vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, and communication. This study focused on the use of the POLOM in Spanish interactions. METHOD: The authors adapted an existing language observation tool for use in clinical settings, creating the preliminary POLOM. Next, they iteratively refined the tool from April to July 2021 using videorecorded medical student-standardized patient encounters from a U.S.-based medical Spanish program. In each refinement iteration, 4 bilingual raters (2 physicians and 2 linguists) independently rated 3 to 6 encounters and convened to discuss ratings with the goals of improving instrument instructions, descriptors, and subsequent rater agreement. Using the final POLOM, raters independently rated 50 videos in rotating interdisciplinary pairs. Generalizability theory was applied to estimate reliability via interrater agreement (dependability) coefficients (range 0-1) for each POLOM category and the total score. RESULTS: POLOM total score dependability equaled 0.927 (single rater) and 0.962 (averaged across 2 raters). The highest mean score was observed for the comprehension category (4.15; range 1-5) while the lowest was for communication (3.01; range 1-5). CONCLUSIONS: Raters achieved a high level of agreement on POLOM assessments of students' medical oral Spanish proficiency. The POLOM is the first assessment tool that provides examinees and instructors with both a holistic and detailed review of clinician non-English oral language skills as contextualized for patient care.

Current State and Proposal of Best Practices of Standardized Patients for Spanish-Language Objective Structured Clinical Encounters in US Medical Schools.

INTRODUCTION: Medical Spanish programs commonly engage Spanish-speaking standardized patients (SPs) for communication skills assessment, yet no studies address SP recruitment, selection, or training. METHODS: We sent questionnaires to medical Spanish faculty at 20 US medical schools to gauge their practices in recruiting and selecting Spanish-language SPs. We invited faculty to distribute a separate questionnaire to Spanish-language SPs to gather SP language abilities, training, and experience. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. When available, we reviewed SP video encounters to formally assess participating SPs' linguistic performance using the SP Oral Language Observation Matrix, a rating tool adapted from the Physician Oral Language Observation Matrix to assess oral medical Spanish proficiency. RESULTS: Eighty percent of faculty (16/20) responded. Standardized patient recruitment sources included institutional English-language SPs, Hispanic student groups and professional organizations, communities, and language professionals. Faculty-reported strategies to determine language readiness included interviewing SP candidates in Spanish and asking them to self-rate language skills using a validated scale. Fifteen SPs (54%, 15/28) from 5 schools responded to the SP questionnaire, and one third (5/15) reported that their Spanish was not assessed before being selected as an SP. In addition, one third (5/15) did not receive any initial training before performing a medical Spanish case. Raters assessed 11 different SPs using the SP Oral Language Observation Matrix, and 6 were rated as linguistically "ready" for the SP role. CONCLUSIONS: Current approaches to recruitment, training, and language assessment of SPs vary. We propose strategies to ensure that medical Spanish encounters authentically reflect Spanish-speaking patients.

The use of Spanish language skills by physicians and nurses: policy implications for teaching and testing.

BACKGROUND: Language barriers present a substantial communication challenge in the hospital setting. OBJECTIVE: To describe how clinicians with various levels of Spanish language proficiency work with interpreters or their own Spanish skills in common clinical scenarios. DESIGN & PARTICIPANTS: Survey of physicians and nurses who report ever speaking Spanish with patients on a general medicine hospital floor. MEASUREMENTS: Spanish proficiency rated on a 5-point scale, self-reported use of specific strategies (own Spanish skills, professional or ad-hoc interpreters) to overcome the language barrier. RESULTS: Sixty-eight physicians and 65 nurses participated. Physicians with low-level Spanish proficiency reported frequent use of ad-hoc interpreters for all information-based scenarios, except pre-rounding in the morning when most reported using their own Spanish skills. For difficult conversations and procedural consent, most used professional interpreters. Comparatively, physicians with medium proficiency reported higher rates of using their own Spanish skills for information-based scenarios, lower rates of professional interpreter use, and little use of ad-hoc interpreters. They rarely used their own Spanish skills or ad-hoc interpreters for difficult conversations. Physicians with high-level Spanish proficiency almost uniformly reported using their own Spanish skills. The majority (82%) of nurses had low-level Spanish proficiency, and frequently worked with professional interpreters for educating patients, but more often used ad hoc interpreters and their own Spanish skills for information-based scenarios, including medication administration. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians and nurses with limited Spanish proficiency use these skills, even in important clinical circumstances in the hospital. Health-care organizations should evaluate clinicians' non-English language proficiency and set policies about use of language skills in clinical care.

Ensuring equity in the era of HLA-restricted cancer therapeutics.

In January 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration granted regulatory approval to tebentafusp, a bispecific T cell receptor protein that targets melanoma antigen gp100 in the context of the human leucocyte antigen (HLA) A*0201 allele. This approval generated significant excitement, given the relative paucity of effective systemic therapies for advanced uveal melanoma. More broadly, tebentafusp represents the first T cell receptor agent to improve overall survival in any solid tumor.Although HLA-A*02:01 is the most common allele at this locus overall, its expression varies considerably among ethnic groups. It is most frequently expressed in Europeans, and less commonly in African Americans and people of Asian or Pacific Island ancestry. While uveal melanoma is most common in Caucasian populations, other HLA-restricted cancer therapeutics are being developed for indications with more diverse patient populations, such as cervical cancer.We advocate for proactive consideration of the populations eligible for each HLA-restricted therapeutic in development to ensure this emerging therapeutic class does not compound long-standing health disparities. As trials may focus on the most prevalent HLA subtypes, it will take the engagement of multiple stakeholders to ensure equitable access to patients of all ethnic backgrounds.

Exploring the Impact of Language Concordance on Cancer Communication.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer who have limited English proficiency are more likely to experience inequities in cancer knowledge, timely care, and access to clinical trials. Matching patients with language-concordant clinicians and working with professional interpreters can effectively reduce language-related disparities, but little data are available regarding the impact of language-concordant interactions in oncology care. This study aimed to assess the use of the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) in language-concordant and -discordant interactions for patients with non-English language preference presenting for an initial oncology visit at four New York City hospitals. METHODS: We used the RIAS, a validated tool for qualitative coding and quantitative analysis, to evaluate interactions between 34 patients and 16 clinicians. The pairings were stratified into dyads: English language-concordant (n = 12); professionally interpreted (n = 11); partially language-concordant (n = 4, partially bilingual clinicians who communicated in Spanish and/or used ad hoc interpreters); and Spanish language-concordant (n = 7). A trained Spanish-speaking coder analyzed the recordings using established RIAS codes. RESULTS: Spanish language-concordant clinicians had almost two-fold greater number of statements about biomedical information than English language-concordant clinicians. Spanish language-concordant patients had a higher tendency to engage in positive talk such as expressing agreement. The number of partnership/facilitation-related statements was equivalent for English and Spanish language-concordant groups but lower in professionally interpreted and partially language-concordant dyads. CONCLUSION: Language concordance may facilitate more effective biomedical counseling and therapeutic relationships between oncology clinicians and patients. Future research should further explore the impact of language concordance on cancer-specific health outcomes.

Identifying Nonpatient Authors of Patient Portal Secure Messages in Oncology: A Proof-of-Concept Demonstration of Natural Language Processing Methods.

PURPOSE: Patient portal secure messages are not always authored by the patient account holder. Understanding who authored the message is particularly important in an oncology setting where symptom reporting is crucial to patient treatment. Natural language processing has the potential to detect messages not authored by the patient automatically. METHODS: Patient portal secure messages from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were retrieved and manually annotated as a predicted unregistered proxy (ie, not written by the patient) or a presumed patient. After randomly splitting the annotated messages into training and test sets in a 70:30 ratio, a bag-of-words approach was used to extract features and then a Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) model was trained and used for classification. RESULTS: Portal secure messages (n = 2,000) were randomly selected from unique patient accounts and manually annotated. We excluded 335 messages from the data set as the annotators could not determine if they were written by a patient or proxy. Using the remaining 1,665 messages, a LASSO model was developed that achieved an area under the curve of 0.932 and an area under the precision recall curve of 0.748. The sensitivity and specificity related to classifying true-positive cases (predicted unregistered proxy-authored messages) and true negatives (presumed patient-authored messages) were 0.681 and 0.960, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our work demonstrates the feasibility of using unstructured, heterogenous patient portal secure messages to determine portal secure message authorship. Identifying patient authorship in real time can improve patient portal account security and can be used to improve the quality of the information extracted from the patient portal, such as patient-reported outcomes.

Linguistic validation of the Spanish version of the Anal Cancer High-Grade squamous intraepithelial lesions outcomes Research Health-Related Symptom Index (A-HRSI): AMC-A04.

OBJECTIVES: The Anal Cancer High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) Health-Related Symptom Index (A-HRSI) is a 25-item measure that assesses physical symptoms and impacts, and psychological symptoms. To promote generalizability and equity in the capture of these concepts in Spanish-speaking participants, we linguistically validated a Spanish version of A-HRSI. METHODS: Following independent forward translation and reconciliation of A-HRSI from English to Spanish, two rounds of cognitive interviews were completed with ANCHOR participants who had been diagnosed with anal HSIL in the prior nine months and preferred delivery of their healthcare in Spanish. Interviews were coded to highlight any items and concepts that were reported as being difficult for any reason by ≥ 3 participants, with such items revised during a research team panel discussion and tested in a second round of interviews if applicable. RESULTS: Seventeen participants representing 8 nationalities were enrolled (Round 1 n=10, Round 2 n=7); 7 participants reported not completing high school (41.2%). No difficulties were reported with respect to the theoretical concepts measured by A-HRSI. We made modifications to the Spanish translation of eight items and two response option terms in cases where participants had difficulty understanding a term, experienced problems in discriminating between terms, or preferred the use of an alternative term to represent the concept(s). CONCLUSION: The Spanish version of A-HRSI is a linguistically valid tool that can be used to assess physical symptoms, impacts, and psychological symptoms related to anal HSIL. Language is a tremendous barrier to enrolling patients to clinical trials. The anal cancer high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) outcomes research [ANCHOR] trial is a randomized clinical trial that recently established that the treatment of anal HSIL, versus active monitoring, is effective in reducing incidence of anal cancer in persons living with HIV (PLWH). The ANCHOR Health-Related Symptom Index (A-HRSI) is a 25-item patient-reported outcomes measure that was developed to assess physical symptoms, physical impacts, and psychological symptoms related to anal HSIL. As approximately 10% of ANCHOR participants preferred the delivery of their healthcare in Spanish, the purpose of the present study was to linguistically validate a Spanish version of A-HRSI. Based on feedback from interviews with 17 participants from the ANCHOR trial who had been diagnosed with anal HSIL in the prior nine months and preferred delivery of their healthcare in Spanish, we made modifications to the Spanish translation of eight items and two response option terms in cases where participants had difficulty understanding a term, experienced problems in discriminating between terms, or preferred the use of an alternative term to represent the concept(s). The Spanish version of A-HRSI is a linguistically valid tool that can be used to assess physical symptoms, impacts, and psychological symptoms related to anal HSIL as part of clinical trials or routine care.

Implementation Strategies to Increase Clinical Trial Enrollment in a Community-Academic Partnership and Impact on Hispanic Representation: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

PURPOSE: Community-academic partnerships have the potential to improve access to clinical trials for under-represented minority patients who more often receive cancer treatment in community settings. In 2017, the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center began opening investigator-initiated clinical trials in radiation oncology in targeted community-based partner sites with a high potential to improve diverse population accrual. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a set of implementation strategies for increasing overall community-based enrollment and the resulting proportional enrollment of Hispanic patients on trials on the basis of availability in community-based partner sites. METHODS: An interrupted time series analysis evaluating implementation strategies was conducted from April 2018 to September 2021. Descriptive analysis ofHispanic enrollment on investigator-initiated randomized therapeutic radiation trials open at community-based sites was compared with those open only at themain academic center. RESULTS: Overall, 84 patients were enrolled in clinical trials in the MSK Alliance, of which 48 (56%) identified as Hispanic. The quarterly patient enrollment pre- vs postimplementation increased from 1.39 (95% CI, -3.67 to 6.46) to 9.42 (95% CI, 2.05 to 16.78; P5 .017). In the investigator-initiated randomized therapeutic radiation trials open in the MSK Alliance, Hispanic representation was 11.5% and 35.9% in twometastatic trials and 14.2% in a proton versus photon trial. Inmatched trials open only at the main academic center, Hispanic representation was 5.6%, 6.0%, and 4.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: A combination of practice-level and physician-level strategies implemented at community-based partner sites was associated with increased clinical trial enrollment, which translated to improved Hispanic representation. This supports the role Q:2 of strategic community-academic partnerships in addressing disparities in clinical trial enrollment.