Joy L Lee1,2, Susan M Rawl3,4, Stephanie Dickinson5, Evgenia Teal6, Layla B Baker6, Chen Lyu7, Will L Tarver8,9,10, David A Haggstrom11,3,4,8. 1. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. joyllee@iu.edu. 2. Regenstrief Institute, Inc. and Indiana University Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research , Indianapolis, IN, USA. joyllee@iu.edu. 3. Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 4. Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 5. Indiana University School of Public Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 6. Regenstrief Institute, Inc. and Indiana University Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research , Indianapolis, IN, USA. 7. Indiana University Center for Survey Research, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 8. Indianapolis VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 9. The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA. 10. The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 11. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although growing, the prevalence of the use of health information technology (HIT) by patients to communicate with their providers is not well understood on the population level, nor whether patients are communicating with their providers about their use of HIT. OBJECTIVE: To understand whether patients are communicating with their providers about HIT use and the patient characteristics associated with the communication. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-administered survey of a sample of patients across the state of Indiana. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred seventy adult participants from across Indiana, 54% female and 79.5% white. MAIN MEASURES: The survey included sections assessing health information-seeking behavior, use of health information technology, and discussions with doctors about the use of HIT. KEY RESULTS: The survey had a 12% response rate. Sixty-three percent of respondent reported going to the Internet as the first source when seeking health information, while only 19% of respondent reported their doctor was their first source. When communicating with doctors electronically, 31% reported using an electronic health record messaging system, 24% used email, and 18% used text messaging. Only 39% of respondents reported having had any conversation about HIT use with their providers. CONCLUSIONS: There remain many unmet opportunities for patients and providers to communicate about HIT use. More guidance for patients and care teams may both help facilitate these conversations and promote optimal use, such as recommendations to ask simple clarification questions and minimize inefficient, synchronous communication when unnecessary.
BACKGROUND: Although growing, the prevalence of the use of health information technology (HIT) by patients to communicate with their providers is not well understood on the population level, nor whether patients are communicating with their providers about their use of HIT. OBJECTIVE: To understand whether patients are communicating with their providers about HIT use and the patient characteristics associated with the communication. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-administered survey of a sample of patients across the state of Indiana. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred seventy adult participants from across Indiana, 54% female and 79.5% white. MAIN MEASURES: The survey included sections assessing health information-seeking behavior, use of health information technology, and discussions with doctors about the use of HIT. KEY RESULTS: The survey had a 12% response rate. Sixty-three percent of respondent reported going to the Internet as the first source when seeking health information, while only 19% of respondent reported their doctor was their first source. When communicating with doctors electronically, 31% reported using an electronic health record messaging system, 24% used email, and 18% used text messaging. Only 39% of respondents reported having had any conversation about HIT use with their providers. CONCLUSIONS: There remain many unmet opportunities for patients and providers to communicate about HIT use. More guidance for patients and care teams may both help facilitate these conversations and promote optimal use, such as recommendations to ask simple clarification questions and minimize inefficient, synchronous communication when unnecessary.
Entities:
Keywords:
health information technology; patient portal; patient–provider communication
Authors: Audrey L Jones; Susan D Cochran; Arleen Leibowitz; Kenneth B Wells; Gerald Kominski; Vickie M Mays Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elaine C Khoong; Gem M Le; Mekhala Hoskote; Natalie A Rivadeneira; Robert A Hiatt; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jeanne M Farnan; Lois Snyder Sulmasy; Brooke K Worster; Humayun J Chaudhry; Janelle A Rhyne; Vineet M Arora Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bethany Tennant; Michael Stellefson; Virginia Dodd; Beth Chaney; Don Chaney; Samantha Paige; Julia Alber Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Hae-Ra Han; Kelly T Gleason; Chun-An Sun; Hailey N Miller; Soo Jin Kang; Sotera Chow; Rachel Anderson; Paul Nagy; Tom Bauer Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2019-12-19
Authors: Steven S Coughlin; Judith J Prochaska; Lovoria B Williams; Gina M Besenyi; Vahé Heboyan; D Stephen Goggans; Wonsuk Yoo; Gianluca De Leo Journal: Risk Manag Healthc Policy Date: 2017-04-07