4.6 Article

Patient Use of Secure Electronic Messaging Within a Shared Medical Record: A Cross-sectional Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 349-355

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0899-z

Keywords

physician-patient relations; electronic mail; healthcare disparities

Funding

  1. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality [R03HS014625-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most patients would like to be able to exchange electronic messages with personal physicians. Few patients and providers are exchanging electronic communications. To evaluate patient characteristics associated with the use of secure electronic messaging between patients and health care providers. Cross-sectional cohort study of enrollees over 18 years of age who were enrolled in an integrated delivery system in 2005. Among eligible enrollees, 14% (25,075) exchanged one or more secure messages with a primary or specialty care provider between January 1, 2004 and March 31, 2005. Higher secure messaging use by enrollees was associated with female gender (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19), greater overall morbidity (OR, 5.64; 95% CI, 5.07-6.28, comparing high or very high to very low overall morbidity), and the primary care provider's use of secure messaging with other patients (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.67-2.26, comparing 20-50% vs. a parts per thousand currency sign10% encounters through secure messaging). Less secure messaging use was associated with enrollee age over 65 years (OR, 0.65; CI, 0.59-0.71) and Medicaid insurance vs. commercial insurance (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.96). In this integrated group practice, use of patient-provider secure messaging varied according to individual patient clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Future studies should clarify variation in the use of electronic patient-provider messaging and its impact on the quality and cost of care received.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available