Cited by 47Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareElectronic Health Records SystemsHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Patient-centered communication in digital medical encounters

Open access
Alpert, Jordan M., Dyer, Karen E., Lafata, Jennifer Elston·2017·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective Patients are increasingly using the secure messaging function available through online patient portals to communicate with their health care providers, yet little is known about the characteristics of conversations that occur. The goal of this study is to describe the types of messages initiated by patients communicating via patient portals and to assess whether providers employ patient-centered strategies in their electronic responses.Design A total of 193 messages from 58 message threads between patients and providers were collected during a one-week period in a large health care system.Methods Content analysis of patient messages was conducted and deductive analysis of provider responses was employed for two types of patient-centered communication, provider use of supportive talk and partnership building.Results Patients sent nearly double the number of messages compared to providers (65% versus 35%). Patient messages expressed concern, sought medical solutions and requested assistance with administrative tasks. Over half (53.4%) of provider replies did not contain language reflective of either partnership building or supportive talk.Conclusion Partnership building language and supportive talk occurred at lower rates than documented in the literature on in-person encounters. This may represent a lost opportunity to strengthen the patient-provider relationship.Practice implications As secure messaging is increasingly utilized as a form of patient-provider communication, it is important to understand how aspects of this communication channel, including the patient-centeredness of the language used by providers, impact patient-provider relationships and patient outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2017.04.019

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 42 · Cited by 47

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [43]Seargeant P Tagg C Introduction: The language of social media The language of social media 2014 Springer 1 20

Authors
Alpert, J. M., Dyer, K. E., & Lafata, J. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Center for the Study of Healthcare Provider Behavior (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Alpert, Jordan M.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
100
Issue
10
Pages
1852-1858
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2610555249
Cited by
47
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R25CA093423)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
patient-centered communication, secure messaging, patient portals, patient-provider communication, partnership development, patient-provider relationship, digital health communication
MeSH terms
Patient Portals, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, United States, Patient-Centered Care, Electronic Mail, Qualitative Research, Electronic Health Records

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