Cited by 109Electronic Health Records SystemsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Patient Use of Secure Electronic Messaging Within a Shared Medical Record: A Cross-sectional Study

Open access
Ralston, James D., Rutter, Carolyn M., Carrell, David, Hecht, Julia, Rubanowice, David, Simon, Gregory E.·2009·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Most patients would like to be able to exchange electronic messages with personal physicians. Few patients and providers are exchanging electronic communications. Objective To evaluate patient characteristics associated with the use of secure electronic messaging between patients and health care providers. Design, setting, and patients Cross-sectional cohort study of enrollees over 18 years of age who were enrolled in an integrated delivery system in 2005. Measurements and main results Among eligible enrollees, 14% (25,075) exchanged one or more secure messages with a primary or specialty care provider between January 1, 2004 and March 31, 2005. Higher secure messaging use by enrollees was associated with female gender (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19), greater overall morbidity (OR, 5.64; 95% CI, 5.07-6.28, comparing high or very high to very low overall morbidity), and the primary care provider's use of secure messaging with other patients (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.67-2.26, comparing 20-50% vs. <or=10% encounters through secure messaging). Less secure messaging use was associated with enrollee age over 65 years (OR, 0.65; CI, 0.59-0.71) and Medicaid insurance vs. commercial insurance (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.96). Conclusions In this integrated group practice, use of patient-provider secure messaging varied according to individual patient clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Future studies should clarify variation in the use of electronic patient-provider messaging and its impact on the quality and cost of care received.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-008-0899-z

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 37 · Cited by 109

Authors
Ralston, J. D., Rutter, C. M., Carrell, D., Hecht, J., Rubanowice, D., & Simon, G. E.
Affiliations
Group Health Cooperative (US)
Corresponding author
Ralston, James D.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2009-01-10
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
349-355
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2069590686
Cited by
109
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
14.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R03 HS014625, R03 HS 014625-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
patient-provider communication, shared medical records, integrated health system, primary care, patient characteristics, gender differences, morbidity, Medicaid, older adults, health insurance type
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Chronic Disease, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Retrospective Studies, Sex Factors, Odds Ratio, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated, Electronic Mail, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review