Observational studyBMJ open2018
Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of E-mail in Primary Care: Characterization of the Reality of a Family Health Unit.Cureus · 2025Article
- Patients' suggestions for improvements to text-based e-consultations. An online survey of users of the national health portal in Norway.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Digital Health Interventions to Improve Access to and Quality of Primary Health Care Services: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Teleconsultation adoption since COVID-19: Comparison of barriers and facilitators in primary care settings in Hong Kong and the Netherlands.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Review
- Digital health and primary care: Past, pandemic and prospects.Journal of global health · 2021Article
- Article
- Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
- COVID-19 and beyond: virtual consultations in primary care-reflecting on the evidence base for implementation and ensuring reach: commentary article.BMJ health & care informatics · 2021Article
- Email Consultations Between Patients and Doctors in Primary Care: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- The Impact of Digital-First Consultations on Workload in General Practice: Modeling Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- General Practitioners' Perceptions of Whether Teleconsultations Reduce the Number of Face-to-face Visits in the Catalan Public Primary Care System: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Lessons Learned From a Living Lab on the Broad Adoption of eHealth in Primary Health Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIt is unclear why the use of email consultation is not more widespread in Dutch general practice, particularly because, since 2006, its costs can be reimbursed. To encourage further implementation, it is needed to understand the current use of email consultations. This study aims to understand the use of email consultation by different patient groups, compared with other general practice (GP) consultations.
settingFor this retrospective observational study, we used Dutch routine electronic health record data obtained from NIVEL Primary Care Database for the years 2010 and 2014.
participants200 general practices were included in 2010 (734 122 registered patients) and 434 in 2014 (1 630 386 registered patients). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and percentage of email consultations and patient characteristics (age, gender, neighbourhood socioeconomic status and diagnoses) of email consultation users were investigated and compared with those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. General practice characteristics were also taken into account.
results32.0% of the Dutch general practices had at least one email consultation in 2010, rising to 52.8% in 2014. In 2014, only 0.7% of the GP consultations were by email (the others comprised home visits, telephone and face-to-face consultations). Its use highly varied among general practices. Most email consultations were done for psychological (14.7%); endocrine, metabolic and nutritional (10.9%); and circulatory (10.7%) problems. These diagnosis categories appeared less frequently in telephone and face-to-face consultations. Patients who had an email consultation were older than patients who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In contrast, patients with diabetes who had an email consultation were younger.
conclusionEven though email consultation was done in half the general practices in the Netherlands in 2014, the actual use of it is extremely low. Patients who had an email consultation differ from those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In addition, the use of email consultation by patients is dependent on its provision by GPs.
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.