Patient Use of Secure Electronic Messaging Within a Shared Medical Record: A Cross-sectional Study
- 267 Downloads
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.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS
Cross-sectional cohort study of enrollees over 18 years of age who were enrolled in an integrated delivery system in 2005.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
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. ≤10% 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.
KEY WORDSphysician–patient relations electronic mail healthcare disparities
This study was funded by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (Grant No. R03 HS014625–01). The authors thank Gwendolyn Schweitzer for her help in preparing this manuscript.
This study was funded by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (Grant No. R03HS014625–01).
Human Subjects Protections Review and Approval
This study was reviewed and approved by the Group Health Center for Health Studies InstitutionalReview Board.
Conflict of Interest Statement
James D Ralston received grant funding from Sanofi-Aventis between 7/1/2004 and 6/30/2006.
- 1.Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
- 10.Ralston JD, Hirsch IB, Hoath J, Mullen M, Cheadle AD, Goldberg HI. Web-based collaborative care for type 2 Diabetes: a pilot randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2008; In press.Google Scholar
- 12.Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th Ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.Google Scholar
- 19.Carrell D, Ralston J. Messages, Strands and Threads: Measuring Electronic patient–provider Messaging. American Medical Informatics Association Annual Session. Washington DC; 2005.Google Scholar
- 24.Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley; 1989.Google Scholar
- 25.Liang K, Zeger S. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986; 73:13–22.Google Scholar
- 26.Godambe V. Estimating Functions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
- 27.Fox S. E-patients With a Disability or Chronic Disease. Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2007.Google Scholar
- 30.Pew Internet and American Life Project. Tracking Survey: April 8th-May 11th, 2008.Google Scholar
- 31.Bell P, Reddy P, Rainie L. Rural Areas and the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2004.Google Scholar
- 32.Harris Interactive. Patient/Physician Online Communication. 2008;2(8).Google Scholar
- 36.Carrell D. Estimating Health Plan Enrollee Race, Income and Educational Attainment from Census Data and Geocoded Addresses. Annual HMO Research Network Conference. Cambridge, MA; 2006.Google Scholar
- 37.Redesigning the practice model for general internal medicine. A proposal for coordinated care: a policy monograph of the Society of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(3):400–9.Google Scholar