Shaohai Jiang1, Y Alicia Hong2, Piper Liping Liu3. 1. Department of Communications and New Media, National University of Singapore, Blk AS6, #03-41, 11 Computing Drive, Singapore, 117416, Singapore. cnmjs@nus.edu.sg. 2. School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 3. Department of Communications and New Media, National University of Singapore, Blk AS6, #03-41, 11 Computing Drive, Singapore, 117416, Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the past decade, online patient-provider communication (OPPC) has emerged as a viable avenue for cancer survivors to communicate with their providers. However, little is known about the patterns of OPPC among cancer survivors. Thus, the current study aims to explore the trend of OPPC used by cancer survivors, and the influence of digital divide on OPPC in the past decade. METHODS: Data from the 2008, 2011, 2013, and 2017 iterations of the nationally representative survey of Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were analyzed. Only cancer survivors were included in the analyses. Descriptive analyses and multivariate regressions were performed. RESULTS: Email has been the most typical means of OPPC; its adoption rate has increased from 9.7 to 36.6% in the past 10 years. More options for OPPC (e.g., mobile app, social medial, video conferencing, electronic health records) have been adopted since 2013. Physical Internet access was a significant predictor of OPPC over the four iterations, while cognitive access failed to predict OPPC in all the four waves. The effect of socio-demographic access varied vastly across iterations, with greater influences in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates an increasing trend in OPPC use among cancer survivors. Significant digital divide barriers also exist in the adoption and diffusion of OPPC. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: OPPC is an important communication channel for cancer survivors and will become more important in the digital era. Targeted interventions to address the digital divide barriers affecting OPPC could be developed to benefit underserved cancer survivors and to bridge health disparities.
PURPOSE: In the past decade, online patient-provider communication (OPPC) has emerged as a viable avenue for cancer survivors to communicate with their providers. However, little is known about the patterns of OPPC among cancer survivors. Thus, the current study aims to explore the trend of OPPC used by cancer survivors, and the influence of digital divide on OPPC in the past decade. METHODS: Data from the 2008, 2011, 2013, and 2017 iterations of the nationally representative survey of Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were analyzed. Only cancer survivors were included in the analyses. Descriptive analyses and multivariate regressions were performed. RESULTS: Email has been the most typical means of OPPC; its adoption rate has increased from 9.7 to 36.6% in the past 10 years. More options for OPPC (e.g., mobile app, social medial, video conferencing, electronic health records) have been adopted since 2013. Physical Internet access was a significant predictor of OPPC over the four iterations, while cognitive access failed to predict OPPC in all the four waves. The effect of socio-demographic access varied vastly across iterations, with greater influences in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates an increasing trend in OPPC use among cancer survivors. Significant digital divide barriers also exist in the adoption and diffusion of OPPC. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: OPPC is an important communication channel for cancer survivors and will become more important in the digital era. Targeted interventions to address the digital divide barriers affecting OPPC could be developed to benefit underserved cancer survivors and to bridge health disparities.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer communication; Cancer survivors; Digital divide; Online patient-provider communication; Trend analysis
Authors: Anne Girault; Marie Ferrua; Benoît Lalloué; Claude Sicotte; Aude Fourcade; Fatima Yatim; Guillaume Hébert; Mario Di Palma; Etienne Minvielle Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Will L Tarver; Terri Menser; Bradford W Hesse; Tyler J Johnson; Ellen Beckjord; Eric W Ford; Timothy R Huerta Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lee Harding; Ronaldo Iachan; Kelly Martin; Yangyang Deng; Deirdre Middleton; Richard Moser; Kelly Blake Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Christoph A Mallmann; Christian M Domröse; Lars Schröder; David Engelhardt; Frederik Bach; Helena Rueckel; Alina Abramian; Christina Kaiser; Alexander Mustea; Andree Faridi; Wolfram Malter; Peter Mallmann; Christian Rudlowski; Oliver Zivanovic; Michael R Mallmann Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2021-11-18
Authors: Rahul Banerjee; Jean C Yi; Navneet S Majhail; Heather S L Jim; Joseph Uberti; Victoria Whalen; Alison W Loren; Karen L Syrjala Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2020-08-08 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Rose Calixte; Argelis Rivera; Olutobi Oridota; William Beauchamp; Marlene Camacho-Rivera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-19 Impact factor: 3.390