Cited by 173Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealthcare Systems and Technology

Enhancing Doctor-Patient Communication Using Email: A Pilot Study

Open access
Leong, S. L., Gingrich, D., Lewis, P. R., Mauger, D. T., George, J. H.·2005·The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The doctor-patient relationship has been eroded by many factors. Would e-mail enhance communication and address some of the barriers inherent to our medical practices? METHODS: Of our study population, 4 physicians offered e-mail communication to participating patients and 4 did not. Both patients and physicians completed questionnaires regarding satisfaction, perceived quality, convenience, and promptness of the communication. RESULTS: Patient satisfaction significantly increased in the e-mail group compared with the control group in the areas of convenience (P < .0001) and the amount of time spent contacting their physician (P < .0001). Physician satisfaction in the e-mail group increased regarding convenience, amount of time spent on messages, and volume of messages. The response time was longer with e-mail. When asked if patients should be able to e-mail their physicians, most patients in the e-mail group and all but 2 of the physicians in the non-e-mail group responded "yes." CONCLUSION: E-mail communication was found to be a more convenient form of communication. Satisfaction by both patients and physicians improved in the e-mail group. The volume of messages and the time spent answering messages for the e-mail group physicians was not increased. E-mail has the potential to improve the doctor-patient relationship as a result of better communication.

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 · 10.3122/jabfm.18.3.180

Cites

24 of 24 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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Lewers DT. Guidelines for patient-physician elec- tronic mail [monograph on the Internet]. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2000 [cited 2004 Dec 23]. Available from: http://www.ama-assn.org/ meetings/ public/annual00/reports/bot/bot2a00.rtf.
  2. Taylor K. The clinical email explosion. Physician Exec 2000;26:40 -5.
  3. Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Brandt AM. Electronic pa- tient-physician communication: problems and prom- ise. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:495-500.
  4. Scherger JE. E-mail-enhanced relationships: getting back to basics. Hippocrates (Sausalito) 1999;13:7-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leong, S. L., Gingrich, D., Lewis, P. R., Mauger, D. T., & George, J. H.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Penn State Cancer Institute (US)
Venue
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Published
2005-05-01
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
180-188
ISSN
  • 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7118
OpenAlex
W2126359055
Cited by
173
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 19
FWCI
19.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Pennsylvania State University (RR10732)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Penn State College of Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
physician-patient communication, email communication, patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, convenience, response time, physician-patient relationship, telemedicine
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Confidentiality, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Informatics, Middle Aged, Office Management, Physician-Patient Relations, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Patient Satisfaction, 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