Cited by 110Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationElectronic Health Records Systems

Online Communication Between Doctors and Patients in Europe: Status and Perspectives

Open access
Santana, Silvina, Lausen, Berthold, Bujnowska-Fedak, Maria, Chronaki, Catherine, Kummervold, Per Egil, Rasmussen, Janne, Sorensen, Tove·2010·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Use of the Internet for health purposes is steadily increasing in Europe, while the eHealth market is still a niche. Online communication between doctor and patient is one aspect of eHealth with potentially great impact on the use of health systems, patient-doctor roles and relations and individuals' health. Monitoring and understanding practices, trends, and expectations in this area is important, as it may bring invaluable knowledge to all stakeholders, in the Health 2.0 era. OBJECTIVE: Our two main goals were: (1) to investigate use of the Internet and changes in expectations about future use for particular aspects of communication with a known doctor (obtaining a prescription, scheduling an appointment, or asking a particular health question), and (2) to investigate how important the provision of email and Web services to communicate with the physician is when choosing a new doctor for a first time face-to-face appointment. The data come from the second survey of the eHealth Trends study, which addressed trends and perspectives of health-related Internet use in Europe. This study builds on previous work that established levels of generic use of the Internet for self-help activities, ordering medicine or other health products, interacting with a Web doctor/unknown health professional, and communicating with a family doctor or other known health professional. METHODS: A representative sample of citizens from seven European countries was surveyed (n = 7022) in April and May of 2007 through computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). Respondents were questioned about their use of the Internet to obtain a prescription, schedule an appointment, or ask a health professional about a particular health question. They were also asked what their expectations were regarding future use of the Internet for health-related matters. In a more pragmatic approach to the subject, they were asked about the perceived importance when choosing a new doctor of the possibility of using email and the Web to communicate with that physician. Logistic regression analysis was used to draw the profiles of users of related eHealth services in Europe among the population in general and in the subgroup of those who use the Internet for health-related matters. Changes from 2005 to 2007 were computed using data from the first eHealth Trends survey (October and November 2005, n = 7934). RESULTS: In 2007, an estimated 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 - 2.1) of the population in these countries had used the Internet to request or renew a prescription; 3.2% (95% CI 2.8 - 3.6) had used the Internet to schedule an appointment; and 2.5% (95% CI 2.2 - 2.9) had used the Internet to ask a particular health question. This represents estimated increases of 0.9% (95% CI 0.5 - 1.3), 1.7% (95% CI 1.2 - 2.2), and 1.4% (95% CI 0.9 - 1.8). An estimated 18.0% (95% CI 17.1 - 18.9) of the populations of these countries expected that in the near future they would have consultations with health professionals online, and 25.4% (95% CI 24.4 - 26.3) expected that in the near future they would be able to schedule an appointment online. Among those using the Internet for health-related purposes, on average more than 4 in 10 people considered the provision of these eHealth services to be important when choosing a new doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Internet to communicate with a known health professional is still rare in Europe. Legal context, health policy issues, and technical conditions prevailing in different countries might be playing a major role in the situation. Interest in associated eHealth services is high among citizens and likely to increase.

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 · 10.2196/jmir.1281

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 38 · Cited by 110

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [29]Cummings J Few patients use or have access to online services for communicating with their doctors, but most would like to The Wall Street Journal Online 2006 5 16
  2. [51]Chronaki C Roumeliotaki T Bujnowska-Fedak M Staniszewski A E-Health consumer attitudes in Poland and Greece: a comparison In: Cunningham P, Cunnigham M, editors. Collaboration and the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press;36-42

Authors
Santana, S., Lausen, B., Bujnowska-Fedak, M., Chronaki, C., Kummervold, P. E., Rasmussen, J., & Sorensen, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Aveiro (PT)
  • University of Essex (GB)
  • Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas (GR)
  • University Hospital of North Norway (NO)
  • Odense University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Santana, Silvina
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2010-06-15
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
e20
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034093676
Cited by
110
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 10
FWCI
14.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
e-health, internet use for health, online appointment booking, patient expectations, Health 2.0, Europe, user profiles, physician-patient relationship
MeSH terms
Appointments and Schedules, Communication, Europe, Forecasting, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Population Surveillance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sampling Studies, Logistic Models, Telemedicine, Internet, Electronic Mail, Electronic Prescribing, 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