Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28522229›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2017

Patient-centered communication in digital medical encounters.

Jordan M Alpert, Karen E Dyer, Jennifer Elston Lafata

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Twenty-first Century Bedside Manner: Exploring Patient-Centered Communication in Secure Messaging with Cancer Patients.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Article
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

3 authors.

Jordan M AlpertDepartment of Advertising, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, United States. Electronic address: jordan.alpert@ufl.edu.
Karen E DyerCenter for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System,United States.
Jennifer Elston LafataUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center and UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, United States.

Funding

Training Program in Behavioral and Health Services Cancer Control ResearchR25CA093423 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI BROWN, RICHARD FREDERICK · 2002 to 2015
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS R25 CA093423
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatients are increasingly using the secure messaging function available through online patient portals to communicate with their health care providers, yet little is known about the characteristics of conversations that occur. The goal of this study is to describe the types of messages initiated by patients communicating via patient portals and to assess whether providers employ patient-centered strategies in their electronic responses.

designA total of 193 messages from 58 message threads between patients and providers were collected during a one-week period in a large health care system.

methodsContent analysis of patient messages was conducted and deductive analysis of provider responses was employed for two types of patient-centered communication, provider use of supportive talk and partnership building.

resultsPatients sent nearly double the number of messages compared to providers (65% versus 35%). Patient messages expressed concern, sought medical solutions and requested assistance with administrative tasks. Over half (53.4%) of provider replies did not contain language reflective of either partnership building or supportive talk.

conclusionPartnership building language and supportive talk occurred at lower rates than documented in the literature on in-person encounters. This may represent a lost opportunity to strengthen the patient-provider relationship. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As secure messaging is increasingly utilized as a form of patient-provider communication, it is important to understand how aspects of this communication channel, including the patient-centeredness of the language used by providers, impact patient-provider relationships and patient outcomes.

Indexed as

CommunicationElectronic MailHealth PersonnelPatient-Centered CarePhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient PortalsQualitative ResearchUnited StatesDoctor-Patient RelationshipsElectronic Health RecordsHealth CommunicationPatient Centered CareQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID28522229
PMCPMC5573682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.