Trends of online patient-provider communication among cancer survivors from 2008 to 2017: a digital divide perspective
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsOnline patient-provider communication Digital divide Cancer survivors Cancer communication Trend analysis
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.
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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.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).Google Scholar
- 7.McGrory A. Communicating with head and neck cancer patients. ORL Head Neck Nurs. 2011;29(3):7–11.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.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.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).Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.Google Scholar
- 35.Gurak LJ, Hudson BL. E-health: beyond internet searches. The internet and health care: theory, research and. Practice. 2006:29–48.Google Scholar
- 36.MacDonald K. Online patient-provider communication tools: an overview. California HealthCare Foundation; 2003.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
- 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).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.Google Scholar