Article

Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals

Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 6GG.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2012; 11(11):CD007978. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007978.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Email is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in health care is not routine. Where email communication has been demonstrated in health care this has included its use for communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals for clinical purposes, but the effects of using email in this way is not known.This review addresses the use of email for two-way clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of healthcare professionals and patients using email to communicate with each other, on patient outcomes, health service performance, service efficiency and acceptability. SEARCH METHODS: We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to January 2010), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to January 2010), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1967 to January 2010), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1982 to February 2010) and ERIC (CSA) (1965 to January 2010). We searched grey literature: theses/dissertation repositories, trials registers and Google Scholar (searched July 2010). We used additional search methods: examining reference lists, contacting authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies examining interventions using email to allow patients to communicate clinical concerns to a healthcare professional and receive a reply, and taking the form of 1) unsecured email 2) secure email or 3) web messaging. All healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers in all settings were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For continuous measures, we report effect sizes as mean differences (MD). For dichotomous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as odds ratios and rate ratios. Where it was not possible to calculate an effect estimate we report mean values for both intervention and control groups and the total number of participants in each group. Where data are available only as median values it is presented as such. It was not possible to carry out any meta-analysis of the data. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials enrolling 1733 patients; all trials were judged to be at risk of bias. Seven were randomised controlled trials; two were cluster-randomised controlled designs. Eight examined email as compared to standard methods of communication. One compared email with telephone for the delivery of counselling. When email was compared to standard methods, for the majority of patient/caregiver outcomes it was not possible to adequately assess whether email had any effect. For health service use outcomes it was not possible to adequately assess whether email has any effect on resource use, but some results indicated that an email intervention leads to an increased number of emails and telephone calls being received by healthcare professionals. Three studies reported some type of adverse event but it was not clear if the adverse event had any impact on the health of the patient or the quality of health care. When email counselling was compared to telephone counselling only patient outcomes were measured, and for the majority of measures there was no difference between groups. Where there were differences these showed that telephone counselling leads to greater change in lifestyle modification factors than email counselling. There was one outcome relating to harm, which showed no difference between the email and the telephone counselling groups. There were no primary outcomes relating to healthcare professionals for either comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base was found to be limited with variable results and missing data, and therefore it was not possible to adequately assess the effect of email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals. Recommendations for clinical practice could not be made. Future research should ideally address the issue of missing data and methodological concerns by adhering to published reporting standards. The rapidly changing nature of technology should be taken into account when designing and conducting future studies and barriers to trial development and implementation should also be tackled. Potential outcomes of interest for future research include cost-effectiveness and health service resource use.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Helen Atherton, Jun 17, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
100 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Being critically ill with a hematological disease is a challenge, sometimes causing a need for support in the adjustment to the stressful life situation. By providing Web-based communication for support from a nurse, patients get access to an alternative and untraditional way to communicate their issues. The aim was to describe the meaning of using Web-based communication for support from a patient perspective. A comprehensive randomized pilot study (n = 30) was conducted, allowing 15 patients in the experimental group to have access to the Web-based communication, to evaluate feasibility. Of these 15 participants, 10 were interviewed, focusing on their experiences. An empirical hermeneutical approach was used and the interpretive analysis focused on the meanings. Web-based communication for support means a space for patients to have their say, consolidation of a matter, an extended caring relationship, access to individual medical assessment, and an opportunity for emotional processing. The main interpretation indicates that the patient's influence on the communication strengthens according to the asynchronous, faceless, and written communication. The increased, and in some sense constant, access to an individual medical and caring assessment, in turn, implies a feeling of safety. Web-based communication for support seems to have the potential to enhance patients' participation on their own terms. To achieve the possible advantages of Web-based communication for support, nurses must acquire knowledge about caring writing. It requires respect for the patient and articulated accuracy and attention in the response given.
    Cancer nursing 05/2014; DOI:10.1097/NCC.0000000000000145 · 1.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The uses of internet-based technologies (e.g. patient portals, websites and applications) by cancer patients could be strong drive for change in cancer care coordination practices. The goal of this study was to assess the current utilisation of internet-based technologies (IBT) among cancer patients, and their willingness to use them for their health, as well as analyse the influence of socio-demographics on both aspects. A questionnaire-based survey was conducted in June 2013, over seven non-consecutive days within seven outpatient departments of Gustave Roussy, a comprehensive cancer centre (≈160,000 consultations yearly), located just outside Paris. We computed descriptive statistics and performed correlation analysis to investigate patients' usage and attitudes in correspondence with age, gender, socioeconomic status, social isolation, and place of living. We then conducted multinomial logistic regressions using R. The participation level was 85% (n=1371). The median age was 53.4. 71% used a mobile phone everyday and 93% had access to Internet from home. Age and socioeconomic status were negatively associated with the use of IBT (p<0.001). Regarding patients' expected benefits, a wide majority valued its use in health care, and especially, the possibility to enhance communication with providers. 84% of patients reported feeling comfortable with the use of such technologies but age and socioeconomic status had a significant influence. Most patients used IBTs every day. Overall, patients advocated for an extended use of IBT in oncology. Differences in perceived ease of use corresponding to age and socioeconomic status have to be addressed. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 02/2015; 51(4). DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.001 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The use of the Internet for health purposes is growing steadily, yet the use of asynchronous communication tools for health care purposes remains undeveloped. The introduction of email as a method of communication in health care has the potential to impact on both patients and health care professionals. Objective: This study aims to describe the characteristics of people who have sent or received an email to or from their doctor, nurse, or health care organization, by country and in relation to demographics, health care resource use, and health status factors. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data (N=14,000) collected from the online Citizens and Information Communication Technology for Health survey, a project undertaken in 2011 by the Institute for Prospective Technology Studies of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The survey was developed to understand and characterize European citizens' use of information communication technologies for health. Descriptive and statistical analyses of association were used to interpret the data.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 03/2015; · 4.67 Impact Factor