Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33164902›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Email Consultations Between Patients and Doctors in Primary Care: Content Analysis.

Helen Atherton, Anne-Marie Boylan, Abi Eccles, Joanna Fleming, Clare R Goyder, Rebecca L Morris

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Helen AthertonWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7072-1925
Anne-Marie BoylanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8187-0742
Abi EcclesWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9792-8299
Joanna FlemingWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5708-5349
Clare R GoyderNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7461-9661
Rebecca L MorrisNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1587-0802
University of Warwick · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasingly, consultations in health care settings are conducted remotely using a range of communication technologies. Email allows for 2-way text-based communication, occurring asynchronously. Studies have explored the content and nature of email consultations to understand the use, structure, and function of email consultations. Most previous content analyses of email consultations in primary care settings have been conducted in North America, and these have shown that concerns and assumptions about how email consultations work have not been realized. There has not been a UK-based content analysis of email consultations.

objectiveThis study aims to explore and delineate the content of consultations conducted via email in English general practice by conducting a content analysis of email consultations between general practitioners (GPs) and patients.

methodsWe conducted a content analysis of anonymized email consultations between GPs and patients in 2 general practices in the United Kingdom. We examined the descriptive elements of the correspondence to ascertain when the emails were sent, the number of emails in an email consultation, and the nature of the content. We used a normative approach to analyze the content of the email consultations to explore the use and function of email consultation.

resultsWe obtained 100 email consultations from 85 patients, which totaled 262 individual emails. Most email users were older than 40 years, and over half of the users were male. The email consultations were mostly short and completed in a few days. Emails were mostly sent and received during the day. The emails were mostly clinical in content rather than administrative and covered a wide range of clinical presentations. There were 3 key themes to the use and function of the email consultations: the role of the GP and email consultation, the transactional nature of an email consultation, and the operationalization of an email consultation.

conclusionsMost cases where emails are used to have a consultation with a patient in general practice have a shorter consultation, are clinical in nature, and are resolved quickly. GPs approach email consultations using key elements similar to that of the face-to-face consultation; however, using email consultations has the potential to alter the role of the GP, leading them to engage in more administrative tasks than usual. Email consultations were not a replacement for face-to-face consultations.

Indexed as

AdultCommunicationElectronic MailFemaleHumansMalePatientsPrimary Health CareReferral and Consultationcommunicationprimary careremote consultation

Identifiers

PMID33164902
PMCPMC7683246
OpenAlexW3101571995

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.