Brit Warner

Purpose: To describe analytical language trends between parents of children with cancer and a patient navigator (PN) over a four-session health insurance literacy intervention.

Methods: A trained PN conducted a Zoom-based education program where health insurance terms/policies (session[S]1), understanding your own plan (S2), legislation (S3), and cost-management tips (S4) were discussed in 1:1 sessions. Analytical language was evaluated through a summary score (1-99) where low scores were defined as intuitive/friendly language and higher scores indicated cold/rigid language. Analysis was done using Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC-22) software across the four sessions for each parent.

Results: Nine of ten parents completed all four sessions, and one parent completed 3 sessions (39 sessions). Averages of each session across all participants were: S1-24.75 (SD=5.91), S2-20.59 (SD=3.35), S3-30.66 (SD=8.11), and S4-19.77 (SD=3.78). Analytic language scores ranged from 13.15-43.59 indicating no sessions contained highly cold or rigid language. Most participant scores followed similar trajectories, decreasing in analytic language from S1-S2, increasing from S2-S3, and then decreasing from S3-S4. S1 focused on defining insurance terms/policies leading to higher analytic language. S2 pivoted for personalization to the family’s insurance plan – thus, more friendly and intuitive language was observed. S3 discussing health insurance legislation (e.g., FMLA) had significant portions of scripted material with potentially less space for friendly/intuitive interactions. Finally, S4 focused on cost management tips, sparking more intuitive and personable conversations.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that intuitive/friendly language is possible despite educational content containing highly analytical content. Increasing rapport between parents and PNs can improve intervention retention.