CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 222Electronic Health Records SystemsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Electronic Patient-Physician Communication: Problems and Promise

Open access
Mandl, Kenneth D., Kohane, Isaac S., Brandt, Allan M.·1998·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-129-6-199809150-00012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A critical mass of Internet users will soon enable wide diffusion of electronic communication within medical practice. E-mail between physicians and patients offers important opportunities for better communication. Linking patients and physicians through e-mail may increase the involvement of patients in supervising and documenting their own health care, processes that may activate patients and contribute to improved health. These new linkages may have profound implications for the patient-physician relationship. Although the federal government proposes regulation of telemedicine technologies and medical software, communications technologies are evolving under less scrutiny. Unless these technologies are implemented with substantial forethought, they may disturb delicate balances in the patient-physician relationship, widen social disparities in health outcomes, and create barriers to access to health care. This paper seeks to identify the promise and pitfalls of electronic patient-physician communication before such technology becomes widely distributed. A research agenda is proposed that would provide data that are useful for careful shaping of the communications infrastructure. The paper addresses the need to 1) define appropriate use of the various modes of patient-physician communication, 2) ensure the security and confidentiality of patient information, 3) create user interfaces that guide patients in effective use of the technology, 4) proactively assess medicolegal liability, and 5) ensure access to the technology by a multicultural, multilingual population with varying degrees of literacy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-129-6-199809150-00012

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mandl, K. D., Kohane, I. S., & Brandt, A. M.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Mandl, Kenneth D.
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
1998-09-15
Volume
129
Issue
6
Pages
495-500
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/0003-4819-129-6-199809150-00012
OpenAlex
W2098449853
Cited by
222
References
49
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 13
FWCI
50.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
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
patient-physician communication, email, telemedicine, patient engagement, physician-patient relationship, health information security, confidentiality, user interface, medicolegal liability, health disparities, health care access, multilingual patients, health literacy
MeSH terms
Communication, Computer Communication Networks, Confidentiality, Humans, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Liability, Legal, Risk Assessment

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