Video and phone visit use differed by language preference among U.S. Latino and Chinese adults during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional electronic health record study.

BACKGROUND: During the first nine months of the COVID-19 emergency, patients were encouraged to use virtual versus clinic visits if in-person care was not deemed necessary by clinical staff. This study examined the association of spoken language preference and ethnicity with use of video versus phone virtual visits by US Latino and Chinese adult patients who got care in the same healthcare system. METHODS: We analyzed electronic health record data for four groups of adults aged 26-85y who had ≥ 1 primary or specialty care outpatient clinician visits during April-December 2020: 80,869 Latino adults preferring Spanish (LEP Latino); 214,765 Latino adults preferring English (non-LEP Latino); 23,430 Chinese adults preferring a Chinese dialect (LEP Chinese); and 49,710 Chinese adults preferring English (non-LEP Chinese). Prevalence of the following utilization outcomes were compared by language preference (LEP/non-LEP) within ethnicity and by ethnicity within language preference for four age subgroups (26-39y, 40-64y, 65-75y, and 76-85y): ≥ 1 virtual (video or phone) visit, ≥ 1 video visit, ≥ 1 phone visit, ≥ 1 clinic visit, video visits only, and phone visits only. We also compared ethnicity x language group differences within age subgroups using absolute difference and adjusted prevalence ratios derived from modified log-Poisson regression models that controlled for age and sex. RESULTS: Among virtual users, LEP Latino and Chinese adults were significantly less likely to use video visits and more likely to use phone visits than non-LEP Latino and Chinese adults in the same age strata. The LEP/non-LEP difference in video visit use was significantly larger among Latino than Chinese patients, with no similar ethnic group difference observed for phone visits. Within the LEP and non-LEP language groups, Chinese adults were significantly more likely than Latino adults to use video visits and less likely to use phone visits. CONCLUSIONS: During the first nine months of the COVID-19 pandemic, uptake of video and phone virtual visits by Latino and Chinese adults significantly differed by LEP/non-LEP status within ethnicity and by ethnicity within LEP/non-LEP language group. These findings underscore the importance of disaggregating data by ethnicity and language preference when attempting to understand and study patient use of different virtual visit modalities.

Association of Patient-Physician Language Concordance and Glycemic Control for Limited-English Proficiency Latinos With Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Providing culturally competent care to the growing number of limited-English proficiency (LEP) Latinos with diabetes in the United States is challenging. Objective: To evaluate changes in risk factor control among LEP Latinos with diabetes who switched from language-discordant (English-only) primary care physicians (PCPs) to language-concordant (Spanish-speaking) PCPs or vice versa. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pre-post, difference-in-differences study selected 1605 adult patients with diabetes who self-identified as Latino, whose preferred language was Spanish, and who switched PCPs between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2013. Study participants were members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health care system (an integrated health care delivery system with access to bilingual PCPs and/or professional interpreter services). Spanish-speaking and English-only PCPs were identified by self-report or utilization data. Exposures: Change in patient-PCP language concordance after switching PCPs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] < 8%), poor glycemic control (HbA1c > 9%), low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) control (LDL < 100 mg/dL), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) control (SBP < 140 mm Hg). Results: Overall, 1605 LEP Latino adults with diabetes (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [13.1] years) were included in this study, and there was a significant net improvement in glycemic and LDL control among patients who switched from language-discordant PCPs to concordant PCPs relative to those who switched from one discordant PCP to another discordant PCP. After adjustment and accounting for secular trends, the prevalence of glycemic control increased by 10% (95% CI, 2% to 17%; P = .01), poor glycemic control decreased by 4% (95% CI, -10% to 2%; P = .16) and LDL control increased by 9% (95% CI, 1% to 17%; P = .03). No significant changes were observed in SBP control. Prevalence of LDL control increased 15% (95% CI, 7% to 24%; P < .001) among LEP Latinos who switched from concordant to discordant PCPs. Risk factor control did not worsen following a PCP switch in any group. Conclusions and Relevance: We observed significant improvements in glycemic control among LEP Latino patients with diabetes who switched from language-discordant to concordant PCPs. Facilitating language-concordant care may be a strategy for diabetes management among LEP Latinos.