How to Engage Older LGBTQIA+ Patients: Lessons Learned From Mayo Clinic Connect, a 100,000+-Participant Social Media Platform.

Kelli Fee-Schroeder, Colleen Young, Victor Chedid, Aminah Jatoi, Elizabeth Cathcart-Rake
{"title":"How to Engage Older LGBTQIA+ Patients: Lessons Learned From Mayo Clinic Connect, a 100,000+-Participant Social Media Platform.","authors":"Kelli Fee-Schroeder, Colleen Young, Victor Chedid, Aminah Jatoi, Elizabeth Cathcart-Rake","doi":"10.1177/10499091241263333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Older LGBTQIA+ patients face discrimination in healthcare and therefore are sometimes reluctant to engage and interact with healthcare providers. This report explores whether a large medically-based internet platform can be used to engage these patients and describes preferable methods for doing so.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used Mayo Clinic Connect, a continuously monitored, internet-based social media platform of 100,000-plus users. Participants completed a brief on-line survey to ensure their study eligibility. No patient-identifying data was asked. Participants then were to call in by phone during specified day time hours for a 45-minute qualitative interview. Alternatively, as a second subsequent option, they were to complete an on-line typed response to 4 questions about their health and healthcare. No temporal overlap occurred between the availability of the phone interview option and the typed-in response option.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the phone interviews, 17 of 64 individuals were deemed eligible, but no individual called in to be interviewed. In contrast, for the typed-in response option, 20 of 37 individuals were eligible and provided comments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A large medically-based internet platform can be used to engage older LGBTQIA+ patients, but the use of typed-in comments appears more successful, presumably because of greater anonymity and convenience.</p>","PeriodicalId":94222,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","volume":" ","pages":"421-423"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091241263333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Older LGBTQIA+ patients face discrimination in healthcare and therefore are sometimes reluctant to engage and interact with healthcare providers. This report explores whether a large medically-based internet platform can be used to engage these patients and describes preferable methods for doing so.

Methods: This study used Mayo Clinic Connect, a continuously monitored, internet-based social media platform of 100,000-plus users. Participants completed a brief on-line survey to ensure their study eligibility. No patient-identifying data was asked. Participants then were to call in by phone during specified day time hours for a 45-minute qualitative interview. Alternatively, as a second subsequent option, they were to complete an on-line typed response to 4 questions about their health and healthcare. No temporal overlap occurred between the availability of the phone interview option and the typed-in response option.

Results: For the phone interviews, 17 of 64 individuals were deemed eligible, but no individual called in to be interviewed. In contrast, for the typed-in response option, 20 of 37 individuals were eligible and provided comments.

Conclusion: A large medically-based internet platform can be used to engage older LGBTQIA+ patients, but the use of typed-in comments appears more successful, presumably because of greater anonymity and convenience.

如何吸引老年 LGBTQIA+ 患者:从拥有 100,000 多名参与者的社交媒体平台 Mayo Clinic Connect 中汲取的经验。
背景:老年 LGBTQIA+ 患者在医疗保健方面面临歧视,因此有时不愿与医疗服务提供者接触和交流。本报告探讨了是否可以利用大型医疗互联网平台来吸引这些患者,并介绍了吸引这些患者的可取方法:本研究使用了梅奥诊所连接(Mayo Clinic Connect),这是一个持续监控的基于互联网的社交媒体平台,拥有 10 万多名用户。参与者填写了一份简短的在线调查,以确保其符合研究资格。调查不涉及患者身份识别数据。然后,参与者将在规定的白天时间内拨打电话,接受 45 分钟的定性访谈。或者,作为第二种后续选择,他们可以在线打字回答 4 个有关其健康和医疗保健的问题。电话访谈选项和打字回答选项之间没有时间上的重叠:在电话访谈中,64 人中有 17 人被认为符合条件,但没有人打电话接受访谈。相反,在打字回复选项中,37 人中有 20 人符合条件并提供了意见:结论:大型医疗互联网平台可用于吸引老年 LGBTQIA+ 患者,但打字回复似乎更为成功,这可能是因为打字回复具有更高的匿名性和便利性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信