Literature DB >> 22483143

Send it: study of e-mail etiquette and notions from doctors in training.

Sarah Resendes1, Thammi Ramanan, Angela Park, Brad Petrisor, Mohit Bhandari.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, more than 247 billion e-mails are sent each day. Little empiric evidence is available to guide how e-mail presentation style, tone, and content affect e-mail recipients and whether these factors impact opinions about the sender and the rapidity of response. In a study of physicians in training assessing a series of 100 e-mail examples, we examined the following: (1) formatting characteristics most and least endorsed, (2) impression of the sender based on the e-mail itself, and (3) factors associated with the decision to respond. We reasoned that our study would provide empiric data to support recommendations for e-mail etiquette, focusing specifically on doctors in training.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study.
SETTING: Division of Orthopaedic Surgery at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: After each e-mail, the participating surgical residents completed a series of questions focusing on their impression of the e-mail appearance, their perception of the sender, and their motivation to respond to the e-mail.
RESULTS: Thirty-two residents participated in this study. The responses indicate that the key negatively endorsed features of the e-mails included the use of colored backgrounds (84%), difficult-to-read font (83%), lack of a subject header (55%), opening salutations without recipient names (50%), or no salutation at all (42%). The senders of negatively endorsed e-mails were perceived by participants as inefficient (p = 0.03), unprofessional (p < 0.001), and irritating (p = 0.007). E-mails with overall positive endorsements were significantly more likely to have the participants perceive the e-mail senders as professional (p < 0.001), pleasant (p = 0.048), and kind (p = 0.059). The participants were 2.6-fold more likely to respond immediately when they perceived e-mails as favorable compared with disliking them (42% vs 16% of responses, respectively, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The e-mails perceived as being disliked overall are likely to result in a negative perception of the sender and delays in response time.
Copyright © 2012 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22483143     DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.12.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Educ        ISSN: 1878-7452            Impact factor:   2.891


  5 in total

1.  Composing Effective and Efficient E-mails: A Primer for Pharmacy Practitioners.

Authors:  Marc R Summerfield; Agnes Ann Feemster
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2015-09-16

2.  Improving email strategies to target stress and productivity in clinical practice.

Authors:  Melissa J Armstrong
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2017-12

Review 3.  The patient-surgeon relationship in the cyber era: communication and information.

Authors:  J Herman Blake; Mary Kay Schwemmer; Robert M Sade
Journal:  Thorac Surg Clin       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 1.750

Review 4.  Academic E-Mail Overload and the Burden of "Academic Spam".

Authors:  Kelly E Wood; Matthew D Krasowski
Journal:  Acad Pathol       Date:  2020-01-21

5.  Etiquette for medical students' email communication with faculty members: a single-institution study.

Authors:  Do-Hwan Kim; Hyun Bae Yoon; Dong-Mi Yoo; Sang-Min Lee; Hee-Yeon Jung; Seog Ju Kim; Jwa-Seop Shin; Seunghee Lee; Jae-Joon Yim
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 2.463

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.