Electronic Health Information Exchange Opportunities for Self-management of Care: Responses from Older Adults With and Without Cancer History in the United States
- 140 Downloads
Purpose of Study
Of 15.5 million US cancer survivors, 80% are ≥ 55 years. Supporting older patients in care self-management through electronic health information (EHI) exchange may enhance recovery. We assessed: (1) perceived importance of EHI access to adults ≥ 55 years (incl survivors) and (2) age-related preferences for EHI exchange.
Older adults are one of the fastest-growing user groups for internet/technologies. Most older adults 55–64 years are active internet users, and use among adults ≥ 65 years is growing quickly as baby boomers mature. Understanding EHI patient-provider exchange preferences may provide opportunities for older patients but also begin to address the future needs of other patient populations, including cancer survivors.
We observed a “digital divide” for perceived importance of EHI access and EHI exchange interests. Engaging older adults (i.e., ≥ 75 years) to improve comfort/experience with technologies may support EHI use in self-management. Survivors may have distinct EHI needs/preferences than older adults without cancer history.
KeywordsCancer informatics Self-management Health information technology Healthy aging
This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Shirley M. Bluethmann, Kisha I. Coa, Catherine M. Alfano, and Bradford W. Hesse declare they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 4.•• Bluethmann SM, Mariotto AB, Rowland JH. Anticipating the “Silver tsunami”: prevalence trajectories and comorbidity burden among older cancer survivors in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;25:1029–36. According to this report from the NCI Office of Cancer Survivorship, the prevalent population is projected to grow to 26.1 million by 2040, and will include 73% of survivors who are 65 years and older. Comorbidity burden was highest in the oldest survivors (those ≥ 85 years) and worst among lung cancer survivors. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Risendal BC, Dwyer A, Seidel RW, et al, Meeting the challenge of cancer survivorship in public health: results from the evaluation of the chronic disease self-management program for cancer survivors. Evidence-Based Programming for Older Adults:172, 2015.Google Scholar
- 8.Emery EE, Lapidos S, Eisenstein AR, Ivan II, Golden RL. The BRIGHTEN program: implementation and evaluation of a program to bridge resources of an interdisciplinary geriatric health team via electronic networking. The Gerontologist. 2012;52(6):857–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kiel JM. The digital divide: Internet and e-mail use by the elderly. Inform Health Soc Care. 2005;30:19–23.Google Scholar
- 14.Zickuhr K, Madden M. Older adults and internet use. Pew Internet & American Life Project 6, 2012.Google Scholar
- 15.de Moor JS, Mariotto AB, Parry C, Alfano CM, Padgett L, Kent EE, et al. Cancer survivors in the united states: prevalence across the survivorship trajectory and implications for care. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2013;22(4):561–70. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Beckjord EB, Arora NK, McLaughlin W, Oakley-Girvan I, Hamilton AS, Hesse BW. Health-related information needs in a large and diverse sample of adult cancer survivors: implications for cancer care. J Cancer Surviv. 2008;2(3):179–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-008-0055-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Beckjord EB, Rechis R, Nutt S, Shulman L, Hesse BW. What do people affected by cancer think about electronic health information exchange? Results from the 2010 LIVESTRONG electronic health information exchange survey and the 2008 health information national trends survey. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2011;7(4):237–41. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2011.000324.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Zulman DM, Jenchura EC, Cohen DM, Lewis ET, Houston TK, Asch SM. How can eHealth technology address challenges related to multimorbidity? Perspectives from patients with multiple chronic conditions. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(8):1063–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3222-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Stellefson M, Alber JM, Wang MQ, Eddy JM, Chaney BH, Chaney JD. Use of health information and communication technologies to promote health and manage behavioral risk factors associated with chronic disease: applications in the field of health education. Am J Health Educ. 2015;46(4):185–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2015.1043064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Schulz R, Wahl H, Matthews JT, et al. Advancing the aging and technology agenda in gerontology. The Gerontologist, 2014.Google Scholar
- 24.Moser RP, Naveed S, Cantor D, et al. Integrative analytic methods using population-level cross-sectional data. HINTS data briefs. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.Google Scholar
- 25.Finney Rutten LJ, Davis T, Beckjord EB, Blake K, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Picking up the pace: changes in method and frame for the health information national trends survey (2011–2014). J Health Commun. 2012;17(8):979–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.700998.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.• Serrano KJ, Yu M, Riley WT, et al. Willingness to exchange health information via mobile devices: findings from a population-based survey. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14:34–40. Respondents in this nationally representative survey were less willing via mobile devices to exchange information considered sensitive or complex. Age, socioeconomic factors, and trust in professional information were associated with willingness to engage in mobile health information exchange and should be considered when developing and tailoring mobile technologies for patient-clinician communication. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Chen Y, Lee BD, Kirk RM. Internet use among older adults: constraints and opportunities, IGI Global, 2012.Google Scholar
- 29.Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first health information national trends survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2618–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.• Hesse BW, Greenberg AJ, Rutten LJF. The role of internet resources in clinical oncology: promises and challenges. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(12):767–76. In this commentary, findings from the NCI's Health Information National Trends Survey are reviewed to highlight Internet trends related to oncology patients. Future trends are discussed, including examples of “connected health” in oncology and an evolution in how networks can support person-centered and family-centered care. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Lustria MLA, Smith SA, Hinnant CC. Exploring digital divides: an examination of eHealth technology use in health information seeking, communication and personal health information management in the USA. Health Informatics Journal. 2011;17(3):224–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458211414843.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Fox S, Duggan M. The diagnosis difference: a portrait of the 45% of US adults living with chronic health conditions. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2013.Google Scholar
- 39.•• American Society of Clinical Oncology. The state of cancer care in america, 2017: a report by the American Society Of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(4):e353–94. In this fourth annual State of Cancer Care in America report, ASCO describes the opportunities and challenges that confront the cancer care community. They highlight the need for rapid transformation in healthcare built on (1) new investments in science and insurance coverage, (2) new payment systems that emphasize quality, and (3) new data sources and health care systems. CrossRefGoogle Scholar