The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a high demand by patients to communicate electronically with their doctor. This study evaluates the use of a web messaging system by staff and patients of UC Davis community Primary Care Network (PCN) clinic. DESIGN: Eight providers and their staff and patients were surveyed on use of this web messaging system, and physician productivity was measured with Relative Value Unit (RVU) and office visit data. RESULTS: 36.9% (238/645) of registered users responded to the survey. The web messaging system was preferred over phone calls by both providers and patients for the communication of non-urgent problems. A great majority of patients found it easy to use (88.8% or 206/232) and were satisfied (85.8% or 199/232). Satisfaction was significantly associated with timely provider response (Goodman-Kruskal Gamma = 0.667, 95% CI = 0.546-0.789). Clinicians were also favorable to the system and, despite concerns, were not inundated with messages. Most found it easy to use, perceived it to improve patient communication, and valued the insurance reimbursement capability. Furthermore, the system did not have a negative impact on physician productivity. CONCLUSION: A patient-provider web messaging system, which provides a combination of security and access controls, customized routing, rich knowledge content, and insurance reimbursement capability, is a useful addition to the array of communication options available to health care providers and their patients.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Effect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer
Gustafson, D. H., Hawkins, R., Pingree, S., McTavish, F., Arora, N. K., Mendenhall, J., Cella, D. F., Serlin, R. C., Apantaku, F. M., Stewart, J., et al. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016007435.x · Cited by 387
Cited by
The Use and Interpretation of Quasi-Experimental Studies in Medical Informatics
Harris, A. D., McGregor, J. C., Perencevich, E. N., Furuno, J. P., Zhu, J., Peterson, D. E., & Finkelstein, J. (2006) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1749 · Cited by 1,023
Costs and benefits of health information technology.
Shekelle, P. G., Morton, S. C., & Keeler, E. B. (2006) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcerta132 · Cited by 501
Levetown, M., & and the Committee on Bioethics (2008) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2008-0565 · Cited by 496
Farnan, J. M., Snyder Sulmasy, L., Worster, B. K., Chaudhry, H. J., Rhyne, J. A., Arora, V. M., for the American College of Physicians Ethics, P. A. H. R. C., the American College of Physicians Council of Associates, & the Federation of State Medical Boards Special Committee on Ethics and Professionalism* (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-8-201304160-00100 · Cited by 420
de Lusignan, S., Mold, F., Sheikh, A., Majeed, A., Wyatt, J. C., Quinn, T., Cavill, M., Gronlund, T. A., Franco, C., Chauhan, U., et al. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006021 · Cited by 212
Metadata
- Authors
- Liederman, E. M.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-01-28
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 260-270
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- OpenAlex
- W2139765507
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 32.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1197/jamia.m1259
- The paper
- Liederman, E. M. (2003). Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m1259
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.