OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of patients who were early adopters of e-mail communication with their physicians. METHODS: Patients' experiences were assessed with an Internetbased survey of 1881 individuals and in-depth telephone follow-up interviews with 56 individuals who used e-mail to communicate with providers. Two investigators qualitatively coded interview comments independently, with differences adjudicated by group consensus. RESULTS: A total of 311 (16.5%) of the 1881 individuals reported using electronic mail to communicate with their physicians. Compared with the population-based Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, users of e-mail with physicians were twice as likely to have a college education, were younger, were less frequently ethnic minorities, and more frequently reported fair/poor health. Among the 311 patients who used e-mail with their physicians, the most frequent topics were results of laboratory testing and prescription renewals. However, many of the 311 users (21%) also reported using asynchronous e-mail inappropriately to convey urgent or sensitive issues (suicidality, chest pain, etc). Almost all (95%) perceived that e-mail was more efficient than the telephone. Important benefits uncovered from the interviews were that some patients felt more emboldened to ask questions in e-mail compared with face-to-face communication with doctors, and liked the ability to save the e-mail messages. Users also expressed concerns about privacy. CONCLUSION: Patients that use electronic communication with their physicians find the communication efficient for disease management. Further patient education about inappropriate use of e-mail for urgent issues is needed.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of patients who were early adopters of e-mail communication with their physicians. METHODS:Patients' experiences were assessed with an Internetbased survey of 1881 individuals and in-depth telephone follow-up interviews with 56 individuals who used e-mail to communicate with providers. Two investigators qualitatively coded interview comments independently, with differences adjudicated by group consensus. RESULTS: A total of 311 (16.5%) of the 1881 individuals reported using electronic mail to communicate with their physicians. Compared with the population-based Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, users of e-mail with physicians were twice as likely to have a college education, were younger, were less frequently ethnic minorities, and more frequently reported fair/poor health. Among the 311 patients who used e-mail with their physicians, the most frequent topics were results of laboratory testing and prescription renewals. However, many of the 311 users (21%) also reported using asynchronous e-mail inappropriately to convey urgent or sensitive issues (suicidality, chest pain, etc). Almost all (95%) perceived that e-mail was more efficient than the telephone. Important benefits uncovered from the interviews were that some patients felt more emboldened to ask questions in e-mail compared with face-to-face communication with doctors, and liked the ability to save the e-mail messages. Users also expressed concerns about privacy. CONCLUSION:Patients that use electronic communication with their physicians find the communication efficient for disease management. Further patient education about inappropriate use of e-mail for urgent issues is needed.
Authors: Douglas W Roblin; Thomas K Houston; Jeroan J Allison; Peter J Joski; Edmund R Becker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jolie N Haun; Wendy Hathaway; Margeaux Chavez; Nicole Antinori; Brian Vetter; Brian K Miller; Tracey L Martin; Lisa Kendziora; Kim M Nazi; Christine Melillo Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Frederick North; Sarah J Crane; Robert J Stroebel; Stephen S Cha; Eric S Edell; Sidna M Tulledge-Scheitel Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Hardeep Singh; Sarah A Fox; Nancy J Petersen; Anila Shethia; Richard L Street Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-06-16 Impact factor: 5.428