CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49Electronic Health Records SystemsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

The Use of Physician-Patient Email: A Follow-up Examination of Adoption and Best-Practice Adherence 2005-2008

Open access
Menachemi, Nir, Prickett, Charles T, Brooks, Robert G·2011·Journal of Medical Internet Research
DOI 10.2196/jmir.1578PMC PMC3221345
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Improved communication from physician- patient emailing is an important element of patient centeredness. Physician-patient email use has been low; and previous data from Florida suggest that physicians who email with patients rarely implement best-practice guidelines designed to protect physicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine whether email use with patients has changed over time (2005-2008) by using two surveys of Florida physicians, and to determine whether physicians have more readily embraced the best-practice guidelines in 2008 versus 2005. Lastly, we explored the 2008 factors associated with email use with patients and determined whether these factors changed relative to 2005. METHODS: Our pooled time-series design used results from a 2005 survey (targeting 14,921 physicians) and a separate 2008 survey (targeting 7003 different physicians). In both years, physicians practicing in the outpatient setting were targeted with proportionally identical sampling strategies. Combined data from questions focusing on email use were analyzed using chi-square analysis, Fisher exact test, and logistic regression. RESULTS: A combined 6260 responses were available for analyses, representing a participation rate of 28.2% (4203/14,921) in 2005 and 29.4% (2057/7003) in 2008. Relative to 2005, respondents in 2008 were more likely to indicate that they personally used email with patients (690/4148, 16.6% vs 408/2001, 20.4%, c(2) (1) = 13.0, P < .001). However, physicians who reported frequently using email with patients did not change from 2005 to 2008 (2.9% vs 59/2001, 2.9%). Interest among physicians in future email use with patients was lower in 2008 (58.4% vs 52.8%, c(2) (2) = 16.6, P < .001). Adherence to email best practices remained low in 2008. When comparing 2005 and 2008 adherences with each of the individual guidelines, rates decreased over time in each category and were significantly lower for 4 of the 13 guidelines. Physician characteristics in 2008 that predicted email use with patients were different from 2005. Specifically, in multivariate analysis female physicians (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12-1.95), specialist physicians (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12-1.84), and those in a multispecialty practice (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.30-2.37) were more likely than their counterparts to email with patients. Additionally, self-reported computer competency levels (on a 5-point Likert scale) among physicians predicted email use at every level of response. CONCLUSIONS: Email use between physicians and patients has changed little between 2005 and 2008. However, future physician interest in using email with patients has decreased. More troubling is the decrease in adherence to best practices designed to protect physicians and patients when using email. Policy makers wanting to harness the potential benefits of physician-patient email should devise plans to encourage adherence to best practices. These plans should also educate physicians on the existence of best practices and methods to incorporate these guidelines into routine workflows.

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.1578

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Menachemi, N., Prickett, C. T., & Brooks, R. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Menachemi, Nir
ORCID
Menachemi, Nir
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2011-02-25
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
e23
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/jmir.1578
PMC
PMC3221345
OpenAlex
W2072829136
Cited by
49
References
37
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
10.25
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)
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 › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
best practice adherence, patient-centered care, physician-patient communication, physician attitudes, outpatient care, patient safety guidelines, health information technology adoption, patient satisfaction with physician-patient relationship
MeSH terms
Adult, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Physician-Patient Relations, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence, Electronic Mail

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