Beyond translation: Transcreation of a clinicians' guide to structure discussions about health-related values with Latinx patients throughout cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to ensure accurate translation and cultural appropriateness of a guide designed to help oncology clinicians provide person-centered care to Spanish-speaking Latinx patients with cancer. METHODS: Initial translation of a clinician-patient values discussion guide in open-ended question format ("Guide") was pretested in interviews with 27 Spanish-speaking individuals, followed by national expert panel review. At three sites, semi-structured, in-depth, audio-recorded interviews in the participant's preferred language (Spanish/English) were then conducted with Latinx patients receiving systemic treatment for a solid tumor malignancy and family joining them at clinic. RESULTS: Interviews of 43 patient/family participants representing diverse Latinx communities addressed the Guide's understandability, acceptability, relevance and responsiveness. Rapid analysis of interviews contributed to cultural adaptation/transcreation of the Guide for a pilot interventional trial. CONCLUSION: Moving beyond translation to transcreation can help promote inclusion, equity, and cultural sensitivity in oncologic care/communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians now have a linguistically- and culturally-adapted guide including questions and prompts to help structure discussions in Spanish or English of health-related values with Latinx patients receiving oncologic care.

Patient Portals to Elicit Essential Patient-Reported Elements of Communication Supporting Person-Centered Oncologic Care: A Pilot Study of the PERSON Approach.

PURPOSE: Patient portal technology offers important new opportunities to support person-centered clinician-patient communication. METHODS: Questionnaires relating to understanding of illness and treatment intent were sent quarterly via portal to all patients scheduled for follow-up in GI medical oncology clinics. For patients in selected clinics, items eliciting health-related values were added. Patient responses were available to all oncology team members in the electronic health record. Workflow and content of clinician-patient discussions about illness, treatment, and care goals stayed within clinicians' discretion. Feasibility (patient response rate), patient understanding, acceptability (three-item patient questionnaire), and efficacy (quality of clinician communication) were evaluated. RESULTS: From May 2021 through December 2022, a total of 12,233 questionnaires about illness/treatment understanding were sent to 6,325 patients (one to six per patient), with 97% response, including 9,358 with both open- and closed-ended responses. Fewer than 0.1% of patients indicated distress related to the questionnaire/process. Open-ended responses complemented closed-ended answers by revealing prognostic awareness and illness concerns. Of 48 patients approached to complete the full questionnaire including values items via portal, 15 first received and completed them in clinic (5 on iPad, 10 on paper), while 33 received and 27 (82%) completed the portal questionnaire. Patients found the portal process acceptable, and ratings of clinician communication were higher after clinic visits informed by patients' questionnaire responses (average prescore 6.8 v 5.9 post; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Almost all patients in this large GI cancer cohort responded via the portal about their understanding of illness and treatment goals. Eliciting their personal values by portal was also feasible, accepted by patients, and improved patient ratings of clinicians' communication. Portals represent a promising tool for scaling assessment of essential patient-reported elements of person-centered communication.