{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06008010680907877, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04906542056074766, 'mean_word_length': 4.763461538461539, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Analyzing patient engagement with digital health tools to facilitate equity across a large statewide community oncology practice.

1575 Background: Digital health solutions (DHS) allow for enhanced remote communication between patients and clinical staff and the COVID-19 pandemic has brought these tools to the forefront of care delivery. Once adopted, barriers to adequate utilization still exist. Given the important need to decrease digital divides, and the diversity of patients and care settings across our clinic’s 220 sites of service, we sought to understand how utilization of oncology DHS may be limited among certain populations. Methods: We investigated utilization among cancer patients who enrolled and engaged with a portfolio of DHS between March 1, 2019 and January 15, 2022. This portfolio includes three tools: (1) an electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) remote monitoring program for tracking symptoms and oral adherence, (2) a patient portal (PP) for securely accessing patient health records, and (3) digital education (DE) for patients regarding disease and treatments. ePRO completion rate, average number of PP logins, and DE read rate were used as measures of utilization for each tool, respectively, and compared among patients with different age (< 65 and ≥65 years), language preference [English (EL) or Spanish (SL)], and distance from clinic (non-rural: < 20 miles OR rural: ≥20 miles). Mann-Whitney U and Chi-Square tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results: This study included a total of 77,347 unique patients representing 651,004 digital encounters. 9,938 patients engaged in ePRO, 49,771 patients in PP, and 12,044 patients in DE. Engagement across all DHS was high in patients of age group < 65 (ePRO: 72.7%, PP: 79.67% and PE 54.7%) as compared to ≥65 years, but the ePRO completion rate is high in ≥65 age group (59.0% vs 55.6%), whereas no significant difference was observed in the PP login activity and DE read rate. EL patients were significantly (p-value < 0.01) more engaged (ePRO 68% vs. 54%, PP: 80% vs. 62%, DE: 57% vs. 37%) and had higher digital utilization (ePRO completion rate: 57.31% vs 53.23%, average PP logins: 7.48 vs 7.14 and DE read rate: 96.2% vs 90.8%) than SL patients across the DHS. Patients living in rural areas comprised roughly 25% of the population and participated across tools similarly as patients living in non-rural areas (ePRO 67% vs. 69%, PP: 79% vs. 79%, DE: 56.9% vs. 56.8%). Utilization of the portfolio was variable based on rural vs non-rural status (ePRO completion rate: 56.3% vs. 57.4%, average PP logins: 7.9 vs. 7.3, DE read rate: 96.02.7% vs 96.3%). Conclusions: Despite variable engagement based on age, language, and rural status across the portfolio, patients within these populations continue to utilize the DHS. How we understand and explore enhancements to DHS remain under investigation for tool optimization for patient-specific barriers to care.