ArticleThe Permanente journal2016
E-mails in a Psychiatric Practice: Why Patients Send Them and How Psychiatrists Respond.
Article in The Permanente journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital privacy in mental healthcare: current issues and recommendations for technology use.Current opinion in psychology · 2020Review
- Telepsychiatry Through Email Mode: Current Status and Consensus Guidelines.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2020Article
- Professional Ethics for Digital Age Psychiatry: Boundaries, Privacy, and Communication.Current psychiatry reports · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextLittle is known about what prompts patients to use e-mail with their physicians and how physicians respond to these e-mails.
objectiveTo identify the main reasons why patients e-mail and to learn how psychiatrists manage these e-mails as part of these patients' overall care.
designOne hundred patient-initiated e-mails to each of two psychiatrists in a group practice were studied retrospectively for primary reason for the e-mail and for psychiatrists' handling of each e-mail. Other data were collected to assess how representative the e-mailing patients were of the psychiatrists' patient panels.
resultsAge, sex, and diagnoses of the e-mailers were similar to our overall panels. The most common reasons for e-mailing were refill requests (19.5%), questions about prescribed medication (16.5%), and worsening of symptoms (11.5%). The modal e-mail was a patient with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder requesting a refill. The psychiatrists' most common responses were authorizing a refill (25%), reassurance (22%), and making or moving up a scheduled appointment (16%). For all patients who reported a worsening of symptoms, responses, communicated by e-mail or telephone, included a combination of an earlier appointment and/or change in medication or dose and/or referral for psychotherapy. Both psychiatrists found e-mail to be an efficient enhancement of their practice, and it was inferred that this was also a satisfying mechanism for patients.
conclusionPhysician-patient communication via e-mail is timesaving for both, and the benefits to patient care should reassure physicians who are wary of using e-mail in their practice. Potential risks to patients without face-to-face or telephone contact appear to be minimal.
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.