IMPORTANCE Often electronic tools are built with English proficient (EP) patients in mind. Cancer patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience gaps in care and are at risk for excess toxic effects if they are unable to effectively communicate with their care team. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether electronic patient-reported outcome tools (ePROs) built to improve health outcomes for EP patients might also be acceptable for LEP patients in the context of oral cancer-directed therapies (OCDT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This qualitative study was conducted at a single NationalCancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. In 2019, English-speaking and Spanishspeaking LEP patients with cancer receiving oral chemotherapies were recruited to participate in a qualitative focus group examining patient attitudes toward ePROs and electronic tools that are used to manage adherence and symptoms related to oral therapies. Six focus groups were held for EP patients and 1 for Spanish-speaking LEP patients. LEP was defined as patients who self-identified as needing an interpreter to navigate the health care system. Data analysis was performed April through June of 2019.EXPOSURES Enrolled patients participated in a focus group lasting approximately 90 minutes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe perspectives of patients with cancer treated with oral chemotherapies on integrating ePROs into their care management. RESULTS Among the 46 participants included in the study, 46 (100%) were White, 10 (22%) were Latinx Spanish-speaking, 43 (93%) were female, and 37 (80%) were aged at least 50 years or older.Among the 6 focus groups with 6 to 8 EP patients (ranging from 6 to 8 participants) and 1 focus group with 10 Spanish-speaking LEP patients, this qualitative study found that EP and LEP patients had different levels of acceptability of using technology and ePRO tools to manage their OCDT. EP patients felt generally positive toward OCDT and were not generally interested in using electronic tools to manage their care. LEP patients generally disliked OCDT and welcomed the use of technology for health management, particularly when addressing gaps in symptom management by their oncology clinicians. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEAlthough most electronic interventions target EP patients, these findings reveal the willingness of LEP patients to participate in technology-based interventions. Expanding ePROs to LEP patients may help to manage gaps in communication about treatment and potential adverse events because of the willingness of LEP patients to use ePRO tools to manage (continued) Key Points Question Should electronic patientreported outcome tools (ePROs), built for patients who are English proficient (EP), be implemented for Spanishspeaking patients with limited English proficiency (LEP), particularly in the context of oral cancer-directed therapies (OCDT)? Findings This qualitative study of 46 participants found that EP and LEP patients have different levels of acceptability of using technology and ePRO tools to manag...

107 Background: About 30 million people in the US report Limited-English Proficiency (LEP). LEP cancer pts are less likely to understand their medical condition(s) and are at increased risk of LHL, emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations. We examined the relationship between LEP, LHL, and ED visits/hospitalization in oncology. Methods: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s New Pt Intake Questionnaire (NPIQ) documents clinical and social determinants of health, including LHL. Pts reported LHL if they responded “a little bit”, “somewhat” or “not at all” to 1 of 2 questions: 1) “How confident are you in filling out medical forms?” and 2) “How confident are you in understanding medical statistics?”. Pts reported LEP if they noted a primary language other than English at registration. ED visits/hospitalizations were determined from Partners Healthcare System records. Statistically significant relationships between LEP, LHL and ED visits/hospitalizations and pt demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, zip code) and clinical (disease center, treatment intent) characteristics were determined with χ2 tests. Results: From 5/30/15 – 4/30/20, 21570 of 98200 eligible pts responded to NPIQ (response rate 22.0%). LHL differed by age (p-value < 0.001), gender (p-value < 0.001) and race/ethnicity (p-value = 0.007). Among LEP pts reporting LHL, financial distress (p-value = 0.004), emotional distress (PROMIS score; p-value = 0.014), and prior cancer (p-value = 0.006) were more prevalent; however, there was no significant statistical increase in ED visits (p-value = 0.237) or hospitalizations (p-value = 0.965) compared to LEP not reporting LHL. Conclusions: The results indicate that sociodemographic and other pt characteristics contribute to ED and hospital utilization in LEP cancer pts. Future studies will employ prospective data to examine the covariates’ predictive ability for resource utilization with LHL among LEP pts. [Table: see text]