Through the eyes of Spanish-speaking patients, caregivers, and community leaders: a qualitative study on the in-patient hospital experience.

BACKGROUND: Spanish-speakers with non-English language preference and complex medical needs suffer disparities in quality of care, safety, and health outcomes. Communication challenges during prolonged hospitalizations for complex illnesses negatively influence how this group engages in their care and decision-making while hospitalized. Limited literature capturing the perspectives of Spanish-speaking patients in this context exists. Given the impact of language barriers on care and medical decision-making, this study documents the experiences of Spanish-speaking patients with NELP and hospitalized with complex care needs as well as caregivers and community leaders. METHODS: Using community-engaged recruitment strategies and semi-structured interviews and a focus group, we gathered insights from Spanish-speaking patients hospitalized for prolonged periods, caregivers, and community leaders from three geographic regions. Data were deidentified, transcribed, translated, coded in duplicate, and analyzed guided by grounded theory using NVivo. RESULTS: We interviewed 40 participants: 27 patients, 10 caregivers and 3 community leaders. We identified four major themes: (1) Disconnected experiences impeding interactions, communication, and decision-making (2) Inadequate interpreter services (3) Benefits and consequences of family at the bedside (4) Community -informed recommendations. CONCLUSION: The study showed that in-person interpreters were preferred to virtual interpreters; yet interpreter access was suboptimal. This resulted in ad hoc family interpretation. Participants noted language negatively impacted patient's hospital experience, including decreasing confidence in medical decision-making. Recommendations from patients, caregivers, and community leaders included expanding interpreter access, bolstering interpreter quality and accuracy, and increasing resources for patient education.

A feasibility study assessing knowledge, vaccine hesitancy, and completion rates of free HPV vaccination in low-income uninsured adults.

Background: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates remain low in the U.S., particularly among minorities and low-income, uninsured patients. We report preliminary data on a pilot study program providing education and free HPV vaccination at a clinic serving low-income uninsured adults. Methods: From October 2020 through October 2022, we assessed HPV vaccination knowledge, awareness, and prevalence of hesitancy towards receiving the vaccine among low-income uninsured patients age 18-45. The Parents Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) survey was modified and used to evaluate vaccine hesitancy. An educational video on HPV was shown to patients declining vaccination. Results: 43 patients were enrolled. 69.8% had heard of the HPV vaccine and 85.7% were non-hesitant based on PACV scores of 0-49. Black participants had a statistically significant higher PACV score (more hesitant) than White participants. Familiarity with the HPV vaccine correlated with lower PACV scores. Only 27% completed all three HPV vaccine doses. Discussion: The availability of an education program together with free HPV vaccination are not sufficient to achieve adequate vaccination rates in low-income, uninsured adults. Innovative, culturally sensitive education and supportive interventions, in addition to access to free HPV vaccination, are warranted in order to improve vaccination rates in this underserved population.

Understanding Benign Breast Disease and Subsequent Breast Cancer in Hispanic White Females: A Step Closer to Evidence-Based Management.

INTRODUCTION: Although Hispanic White (HW) females have a lower incidence of breast cancer than non-Hispanic White (NHW) females, breast cancer risk is unclear for HW females after benign breast disease (BBD). METHODS: We compared BBD characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among HW and NHW females in New Mexico using a population-based collection of benign breast biopsies (1996-2007). BBD was categorized as nonproliferative disease (NPD), proliferative disease without atypia (PDWA), or atypical hyperplasia (AH). Breast cancer risk was assessed as absolute risk (AR) using cumulative incidence and RR by comparing the number of breast cancer events in BBDs to non-BBD. RESULTS: This study included 3,684 HW and 6,587 NHW females with BBD. HW females had similar proportions of NPD (58.6% vs. 54.3%), PDWA (21.4% vs. 23.5%), and AH (3.6% vs. 3.3%) as NHW females. Breast cancer risk among all females with BBD was higher than population-based expected rates (RR, 1.87) and was similar for HW and NHW subgroups (RR = 1.99 vs. 1.84). As expected, breast cancer risk increased with increasing BBD severity, both overall [RR, 1.81 (NPD), 1.85 (PDWA), and 3.10 (AH)] and in the HW and NHW subgroups. Adjusted AR of breast cancer at 5 years also increased with the severity of BBD (HW vs. NHW; NPD: 1.4% vs. 2.1%; PDWA: 1.5% vs. 2.7%; AH: 6% vs. 4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: We found similar breast cancer RRs and ARs in HW and NHW. Risk counseling should ensure that HW females receive breast cancer clinical management warranted by their similar absolute risks. IMPACT: The present population-based provides evidence for the clinical management of HW females with BBD for the prevention of breast cancer.