Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16236699›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2005

An Internet-based patient-provider communication system: randomized controlled trial.

Chen-Tan Lin, Loretta Wittevrongel, Laurie Moore, Brenda L Beaty, Stephen E Ross

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

98 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Adult patient access to electronic health records.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Patients' online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic review in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Patient Portal Usage and Outcomes Among Adult Patients with Uncontrolled Asthma.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2020
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Usability testing finds problems for novice users of pediatric portals.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Chen-Tan LinDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado, Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO, USA. CT.Lin@uchsc.edu
Loretta Wittevrongel
Laurie Moore
Brenda L Beaty
Stephen E Ross

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet-based interactive websites for patient communication (patient portals) may improve communication between patients and their clinics and physicians.

objectiveThe aim of the study was to assess the impact of a patient portal on patients' satisfaction with access to their clinic and clinical care. Another aim was to analyze the content and volume of email messages and telephone calls from patients to their clinic.

methodsThis was a randomized controlled trial with 606 patients from an academic internal medicine practice. The intervention "portal" group used a patient portal to send secure messages directly to their physicians and to request appointments, prescription refills, and referrals. The control group received usual care. We assessed patient satisfaction at the end of the 6-month trial period and compared the content of telephone and portal communications.

resultsPortal group patients reported improved communication with the clinic (portal: 77/174 [44%] "a little better" or "a lot better;" control: 18/146 [12%]; chi2 = 38.8, df = 1, P < .001) and higher satisfaction with overall care (portal: 103/174 [59%] "very good" or "excellent;" control: 78/162 [48%]; chi2 = 4.1, df = 1, P = .04). Portal group patients also reported higher satisfaction with each of the portal's services. Physicians received 1 portal message per day for every 250 portal patients. Total telephone call volume was not affected. Patients were more likely to send informational and psychosocial messages by portal than by phone. Of all surveyed patients, 162/341 (48%) were willing to pay for online correspondence with their physician. Of those willing to pay, the median amount cited was 2 USD per message.

conclusionsPortal group patients demonstrated increased satisfaction with communication and overall care. Patients in the portal group particularly valued the portal's convenience, reduced communication barriers, and direct physician responses. More online messages from patients contained informational and psychosocial content compared to telephone calls, which may enhance the patient-physician relationship.

Indexed as

Information ServicesInternetPatient SatisfactionPatient SelectionColoradoDocumentationHumansMedical Staff, HospitalPatient Access to RecordsProfessional-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID16236699
PMCPMC1550679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.