Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29079552›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Web-Based Tools for Text-Based Patient-Provider Communication in Chronic Conditions: Scoping Review.

Teja Voruganti, Eva Grunfeld, Tutsirai Makuwaza, Jacqueline L Bender

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Status Quo of Professional⁻Patient Relations in the Internet Era: Bibliometric and Co-Word Analyses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Patient and healthcare provider views on a patient-reported outcomes portal.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Teja VorugantiInstitute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4064-5455
Eva GrunfeldInstitute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9695-2118
Tutsirai MakuwazaDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5875-5196
Jacqueline L BenderDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1501-335X

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with chronic conditions require ongoing care which not only necessitates support from health care providers outside appointments but also self-management. Web-based tools for text-based patient-provider communication, such as secure messaging, allow for sharing of contextual information and personal narrative in a simple accessible medium, empowering patients and enabling their providers to address emerging care needs.

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to (1) conduct a systematic search of the published literature and the Internet for Web-based tools for text-based communication between patients and providers; (2) map tool characteristics, their intended use, contexts in which they were used, and by whom; (3) describe the nature of their evaluation; and (4) understand the terminology used to describe the tools.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review using the MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database) databases. We summarized information on the characteristics of the tools (structure, functions, and communication paradigm), intended use, context and users, evaluation (study design and outcomes), and terminology. We performed a parallel search of the Internet to compare with tools identified in the published literature.

resultsWe identified 54 papers describing 47 unique tools from 13 countries studied in the context of 68 chronic health conditions. The majority of tools (77%, 36/47) had functions in addition to communication (eg, viewable care plan, symptom diary, or tracker). Eight tools (17%, 8/47) were described as allowing patients to communicate with the team or multiple health care providers. Most of the tools were intended to support communication regarding symptom reporting (49%, 23/47), and lifestyle or behavior modification (36%, 17/47). The type of health care providers who used tools to communicate with patients were predominantly allied health professionals of various disciplines (30%, 14/47), nurses (23%, 11/47), and physicians (19%, 9/47), among others. Over half (52%, 25/48) of the tools were evaluated in randomized controlled trials, and 23 tools (48%, 23/48) were evaluated in nonrandomized studies. Terminology of tools varied by intervention type and functionality and did not consistently reflect a theme of communication. The majority of tools found in the Internet search were patient portals from 6 developers; none were found among published articles.

conclusionsWeb-based tools for text-based patient-provider communication were identified from a wide variety of clinical contexts and with varied functionality. Tools were most prevalent in contexts where intended use was self-management. Few tools for team-based communication were found, but this may become increasingly important as chronic disease care becomes more interdisciplinary.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsChronic DiseaseCommunicationElectronic Health RecordsHumansInternetchronic diseasescommunicationelectronic mailinterdisciplinary communicationInternetpatient care teampatient portalphysician-patient relationstelemedicine and telecommunicationtext messaging

Identifiers

PMID29079552
PMCPMC5681721

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.