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: 6.03). 11/2012; 11(11):CD007978. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007978.pub2
Source: PubMed


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


Available from: Helen Atherton
  • Source
    • "In light of this, IBT can bring valuable opportunities to improve cancer care coordination by enhancing patient-provider communication, by monitoring adverse events and by providing better patient follow-up at distance [6] [7]. "
    [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.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2015 · European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990)
    • "Consumer demand for online clinical services is growing faster than the professional response.[1] Previous studies have reported that 90% of patients with Internet access would like to contact through E-mail with their physician, regarding administrative issues, medication concerns and other aspects of care.[2] Nevertheless, online patient-provider communication remains uncommon although it is slowly increasing.[345678] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Information technology can play a vital role in meeting patient needs and reinforcing the relationship among patients and their pain physicians. However, strong resistance remains on the medical side to this type of non-frontal care.Objectives:The primary objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an E-mail intervention on customers’ satisfaction. The secondary goals were to analyze the messages from patients to their clinician (not only the volume but also the content) and the impact on client, professional and health services outcomes.Study Design:A prospective, non-randomized evaluation of patients undergoing treatment for chronic pain from September 2011 to May 2012.Setting:A private, specialty referral center in Spain.Materials and Methods:Participants were users visiting the Pain Management Unit evaluated by one physician. The E-mail address of the facility was written in every medical report provided. Patient satisfaction at the end of the 8-month trial period was assessed and outcomes recorded.Results:Patients reported better communication with their therapist and greater satisfaction with overall care. 780 E-mails were read. Specialists received an average of 5 messages per day (standard deviation 0,3). None of them was unsuitable.Limitations:This is a prospective, single center evaluation performed by one doctor. There was no control group due to ethical considerations.Conclusions:Electronic communication is a cheap, easy and feasible way to address a wide range of concerns, thus enhancing patients’ satisfaction. More efforts are needed to implement routinely usage of this tool. If used appropriately, E-mail can facilitate physician-dependent interactions, promote access to care, save time and reduce costs. Concerns about billing, improper utilization, privacy and confidentiality might complicate its introduction and acceptance. Internet access remains a significant barrier to online patient-provider transference.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Email is widely used in many sectors and lots of people use it in their day to day lives. The use of email in health care is not yet common. One use for it is for health professionals to send patients/caregivers information on how to be healthy and avoid disease. This review examines how patients, healthcare professionals and health services may be affected by using email in this way. We found that there was not much evidence on the effects of using email to give people information on disease prevention and health promotion. We found only six trials with 8372 participants in total. All of the trials had elements of bias. Four studies compared email to standard mail as a method of communication, and found that using email instead of mail did not make any difference to patient or caregiver understanding, or the uptake of preventive screening. Two studies compared email with usual care, and found that using email instead of usual methods of information delivery did make any difference to patient or caregiver understanding and support, or patient health status and well-being. We were unable to properly assess email's impact on patient or caregiver behaviours/actions as the results were mixed. As there is a lack of good quality evidence for whether email can be used by healthcare professionals to provide information to patients or caregivers on how to stay healthy and avoid disease, we need to think about how to get good measurable information on this. Future studies should follow advice on good ways of carrying out and presenting research. It would be useful if they could look at the costs of using email and take into account ongoing changes in technology.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2012 · Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
Show more