Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Trends of online patient-provider communication among cancer survivors from 2008 to 2017: a digital divide perspective

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Survivorship Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In the past decade, online patient-provider communication (OPPC) has emerged as a viable avenue for cancer survivors to communicate with their providers. However, little is known about the patterns of OPPC among cancer survivors. Thus, the current study aims to explore the trend of OPPC used by cancer survivors, and the influence of digital divide on OPPC in the past decade.

Methods

Data from the 2008, 2011, 2013, and 2017 iterations of the nationally representative survey of Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were analyzed. Only cancer survivors were included in the analyses. Descriptive analyses and multivariate regressions were performed.

Results

Email has been the most typical means of OPPC; its adoption rate has increased from 9.7 to 36.6% in the past 10 years. More options for OPPC (e.g., mobile app, social medial, video conferencing, electronic health records) have been adopted since 2013. Physical Internet access was a significant predictor of OPPC over the four iterations, while cognitive access failed to predict OPPC in all the four waves. The effect of socio-demographic access varied vastly across iterations, with greater influences in 2017.

Conclusions

This study illustrates an increasing trend in OPPC use among cancer survivors. Significant digital divide barriers also exist in the adoption and diffusion of OPPC.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

OPPC is an important communication channel for cancer survivors and will become more important in the digital era. Targeted interventions to address the digital divide barriers affecting OPPC could be developed to benefit underserved cancer survivors and to bridge health disparities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McCabe MS, Bhatia S, Oeffinger KC, Reaman GH, Tyne C, Wollins DS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: achieving high-quality cancer survivorship care. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(5):631–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Richards R, Kinnersley P, Brain K, McCutchan G, Staffurth J, Wood F. Use of Mobile devices to help Cancer patients meet their information needs in non-inpatient settings: systematic review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018;6(12):e10026.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Jiang S. How does online patient–provider communication heal? Examining the role of patient satisfaction and communication experience in China. Health Commun. 2018:1–8.

  5. Tarver WL, Menser T, Hesse BW, Johnson TJ, Beckjord E, Ford EW, et al. Growth dynamics of patient-provider internet communication: trend analysis using the health information National Trends Survey (2003 to 2013). J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(3):e109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Santana S, Lausen B, Bujnowska-Fedak M, Chronaki C, Kummervold PE, Rasmussen J, et al. Online communication between doctors and patients in Europe: status and perspectives. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(2).

  7. McGrory A. Communicating with head and neck cancer patients. ORL Head Neck Nurs. 2011;29(3):7–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Girault A, Ferrua M, Lalloué B, Sicotte C, Fourcade A, Yatim F, et al. Internet-based technologies to improve cancer care coordination: current use and attitudes among cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(4):551–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chou WS, Liu B, Post S, Hesse B. Health-related internet use among cancer survivors: data from the health information National Trends Survey, 2003–2008. J Cancer Surviv. 2011;5(3):263–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jiang S, Hong YA. Mobile-based patient-provider communication in cancer survivors: the roles of health literacy and patient activation. Psycho-Oncology. 2018;27(3):886–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(6):501–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. van Dijk JA. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics. 2006;34(4–5):221–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van Dijk J, Hacker K. The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Inf Soc. 2003;19(4):315–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Xiao N, Sharman R, Rao HR, Upadhyaya S. Factors influencing online health information search: an empirical analysis of a national cancer-related survey. Decis Support Syst. 2014;57:417–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jiang S, Street RL. Factors influencing communication with doctors via the internet: a cross-sectional analysis of 2014 HINTS survey. Health Commun. 2017;32(2):180–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Couchman GR, Forjuoh SN, Rascoe TG, Reis MD, Koehler B, van Walsum KL. E-mail communications in primary care: what are patients’ expectations for specific test results? Int J Med Inform. 2005;74(1):21–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sciamanna CN, Rogers ML, Shenassa ED, Houston TK. Patient access to US physicians who conduct internet or e-mail consults. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(3):378–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Katz SJ, Nissan N, Moyer CA. Crossing the digital divide: evaluating online communication between patients and their providers. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(9):593–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Moyer CA, Stern DT, Dobias KS, Cox DT, Katz SJ. Bridging the electronic divide: patient and provider perspectives on e-mail communication in primary care. Am J Manag Care. 2002;8(5):427–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Prestin A, Vieux SN, Chou WS. Is online health activity alive and well or flatlining? Findings from 10 years of the health information national trends survey. J Health Commun. 2015;20(7):790–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jiang S. The role of social media use in improving cancer survivors’ emotional wellbeing: a moderated mediation study. J Cancer Surviv. 2017;11(3):386–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rincon E, Monteiro-Guerra F, Rivera-Romero O, Dorronzoro-Zubiete E, Sanchez-Bocanegra CL, Gabarron E. Mobile phone apps for quality of life and well-being assessment in breast and prostate Cancer patients: systematic review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2017;5(12).

  23. Graham AL, Amato MS. Twelve million smokers look online for smoking cessation help annually: health information National Trends Survey Data, 2005–2017. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018.

  24. Ye J, Rust G, Fry-Johnson Y, Strothers H. E-mail in patient–provider communication: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(2):266–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sowerbutts H, Fertleman C. How best to use email with patients. BMJ. 2016;352:h6225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Epstein R, Street RL. Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD; 2007.

  27. Voruganti T, Grunfeld E, Makuwaza T, Bender JL. Web-based tools for text-based patient-provider communication in chronic conditions: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(10):e366.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Blanch-Hartigan D, Chawla N, Moser RP, Rutten LJF, Hesse BW, Arora NK. Trends in cancer survivors’ experience of patient-centered communication: results from the health information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Cancer Surviv. 2016;10(6):1067–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Weiner JP. Doctor-patient communication in the e-health era. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012;1(1):33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Rains SA. Health at high speed: broadband internet access, health communication, and the digital divide. Commun Res. 2008;35(3):283–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cotten SR, Gupta SS. Characteristics of online and offline health information seekers and factors that discriminate between them. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(9):1795–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Johnson JD, Meischke H. A comprehensive model of cancer-related information seeking applied to magazines. Hum Commun Res. 1993;19(3):343–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kreps GL. Disseminating relevant health information to underserved audiences: implications of the digital divide pilot projects. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(4):S68–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Büchi M, Just N, Latzer M. Modeling the second-level digital divide: a five-country study of social differences in internet use. New Media Soc. 2016;18(11):2703–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gurak LJ, Hudson BL. E-health: beyond internet searches. The internet and health care: theory, research and. Practice. 2006:29–48.

  36. MacDonald K. Online patient-provider communication tools: an overview. California HealthCare Foundation; 2003.

  37. Mayer DK, Terrin NC, Kreps GL, Menon U, McCance K, Parsons SK, et al. Cancer survivors information seeking behaviors: a comparison of survivors who do and do not seek information about cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(3):342–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hong YA, Cho J. Has the digital health divide widened? Trends of health-related internet use among older adults from 2003 to 2011. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2016;72(5):856–63.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cook N, Maganti M, Dobriyal A, Sheinis M, Wei AC, Ringash J, et al. E-mail communication practices and preferences among patients and providers in a large comprehensive cancer center. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(7):676–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mattsson S, Olsson EMG, Johansson B, Carlsson M. Health-related internet use in people with cancer: results from a cross-sectional study in two outpatient clinics in Sweden. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(5).

  41. Viswanath K, Nagler RH, Bigman-Galimore CA, McCauley MP, Jung M, Ramanadhan S. The communications revolution and health inequalities in the 21st century: implications for cancer control. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2012;21(10):1701–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. American Medical Informatics Association. Response to FCC request for comments on actions to accelerate adoption and accessibility of broadband enabled health care solutions and advanced technologies. 2017.

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by Start-up Grant from National University of Singapore, and the PESCA award and T3 award from the Texas A&M University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communications and New Media, National University of Singapore, Blk AS6, #03-41, 11 Computing Drive, Singapore, 117416, Singapore

    Shaohai Jiang & Piper Liping Liu

  2. School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Y. Alicia Hong

Authors
  1. Shaohai Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y. Alicia Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Piper Liping Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaohai Jiang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Shaohai Jiang declares that he has no conflict of interest. Y. Alicia Hong declares that she has no conflict of interest. Piper Liping Liu declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, S., Hong, Y.A. & Liu, P.L. Trends of online patient-provider communication among cancer survivors from 2008 to 2017: a digital divide perspective. J Cancer Surviv 13, 197–204 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-019-00742-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-019-00742-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation