Patient Use of Secure Electronic Messaging Within a Shared Medical Record: A Cross-sectional Study
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Age and education level might influence the effectiveness of digital health interventions.
“In some cases, age and education level might influence the effectiveness of DHIs (35, 36).”
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
- PMC
- PMC2642567
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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