The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Enhancing Doctor-Patient Communication Using Email: A Pilot Study
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“and provides opportunities to improve the efficiency of clinical time use.58,59”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [58]
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
Use of the Internet and E-mail for Health Care Information: Results From a National Survey
Baker, L., Wagner, T. H., Singer, S., & Bundorf, M. K. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.18.2400 · Cited by 1,129
The Unified Medical Language System: An Informatics Research Collaboration
Humphreys, B. L., Lindberg, D. A. B., Schoolman, H. M., & Barnett, G. O. (1998) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.1998.0050001 · Cited by 514
Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Electronic Mail with Patients
Kane, B., Sands, D. Z., & for the AMIA Internet Working Group, T. F. O. G. F. T. U. O. C.-P. E. M. (1998) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.1998.0050104 · Cited by 427
Spielberg, A. R. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1353 · Cited by 225
Electronic Patient-Physician Communication: Problems and Promise
Mandl, K. D., Kohane, I. S., & Brandt, A. M. (1998) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-129-6-199809150-00012 · Cited by 222
Patients, Physicians, And The Internet
Kassirer, J. P. (2000) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.19.6.115 · Cited by 212
Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication
Liederman, E. M. (2003) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1259 · Cited by 188
The Origin, Content, and Workload of E-mail Consultations
Borowitz, S. M. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1321 · Cited by 178
Moyer, C. A., Stern, D. T., Dobias, K. S., Cox, D. T., & Katz, S. J. (2002) · PubMed · Cited by 157
Responses to Unsolicited Patient E-mail Requests for Medical Advice on the World Wide Web
Eysenbach, G. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1333 · Cited by 140
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 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.
- Taylor K. The clinical email explosion. Physician Exec 2000;26:40 -5.
- Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Brandt AM. Electronic pa- tient-physician communication: problems and prom- ise. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:495-500.
- Scherger JE. E-mail-enhanced relationships: getting back to basics. Hippocrates (Sausalito) 1999;13:7-8.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Lustria, M. L. A., Smith, S. A., & Hinnant, C. C. (2011) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458211414843 · Cited by 237
E-mail in patient–provider communication: A systematic review
Ye, J., Rust, G. S., Fry-Johnson, Y. W., & Strothers, H. (2009) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.038 · Cited by 197
Singh, H., Naik, A. D., Rao, R., & Petersen, L. A. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0393-z · Cited by 162
Beckjord, E. B., Rutten, L. J. F., Squiers, L., Arora, N. K., Volckmann, L. N., Moser, R. P., & Hesse, B. W. (2007) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.9.3.e20 · Cited by 157
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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
