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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
摘要：
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保健提供者互动。本报告探讨了是否可以使用大型医疗互联网平台来吸引这些患者，并描述了这样做的首选方法。
方法：这项研究使用了MayoClinicConnect，持续监控，基于互联网的100,000多名用户的社交媒体平台。参与者完成了简短的在线调查，以确保他们的研究资格。没有询问患者识别数据。然后，参与者将在指定的白天时间通过电话进行45分钟的定性采访。或者，作为第二个后续选项，他们将完成对有关其健康和医疗保健的4个问题的在线打字回答。电话采访选项的可用性与键入的响应选项之间没有时间重叠。
结果：对于电话采访，64人中有17人被视为合格，但没有人打电话来面试。相比之下,对于键入的响应选项，37人中有20人符合资格并提供了评论。
结论：大型医疗互联网平台可用于吸引老年LGBTQIA+患者，但是使用键入的注释似乎更成功，大概是因为更大的匿名性和便利性。
方法：这项研究使用了MayoClinicConnect，持续监控，基于互联网的100,000多名用户的社交媒体平台。参与者完成了简短的在线调查，以确保他们的研究资格。没有询问患者识别数据。然后，参与者将在指定的白天时间通过电话进行45分钟的定性采访。或者，作为第二个后续选项，他们将完成对有关其健康和医疗保健的4个问题的在线打字回答。电话采访选项的可用性与键入的响应选项之间没有时间重叠。
结果：对于电话采访，64人中有17人被视为合格，但没有人打电话来面试。相比之下,对于键入的响应选项，37人中有20人符合资格并提供了评论。
结论：大型医疗互联网平台可用于吸引老年LGBTQIA+患者，但是使用键入的注释似乎更成功，大概是因为更大的匿名性和便利性。
