Trial reportPublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)2014
Health-care provider preferences for time-sensitive communications from public health agencies.
Trial report in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Analysis of Electronic Health Record Work to Manage Asynchronous Clinical Messages among Breast Cancer Care Teams.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
- Exploring bi-directional and SMS messaging for communications between Public Health Agencies and their stakeholders: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Rapid Emergency Alert Communication in Health (REACH) Trial was a randomized control trial to systematically compare and evaluate the effectiveness of traditional and mobile communication modalities for public health agencies to disseminate time-sensitive information to health-care providers (HCPs). We conducted a sub-study to identify the communication channels by which HCPs preferred receiving public health alerts and advisories.
methodsEnrolled HCPs were blindly randomized into four message delivery groups to receive time-sensitive public health messages by e-mail, fax, or short message service (SMS) or to a no-message control group. Follow-up interviews were conducted 5-10 days after the message. In the final interview, additional questions were asked regarding HCP preferences for receiving public health alerts and advisories. We examined the relationship between key covariates and preferred method of receiving public health alert and advisory messages.
resultsGender, age, provider type, and study site showed statistically significant associations with delivery method preference. Older providers were more likely than younger providers to prefer e-mail or fax, while younger providers were more likely than older providers to prefer receiving messages via SMS.
conclusionsThere is currently no evidence-based research to guide or improve communication between public health agencies and HCPs. Understanding the preferences of providers for receiving alerts and advisories may improve the effectiveness of vital public health communications systems and, in turn, may enhance disease surveillance, aid in early detection, and improve case finding and situational awareness for public health emergencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.