Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34328421›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2021

Email Patient-Provider Communication and Cancer Screenings Among US Adults: Cross-sectional Study.

Tiffany B Kindratt, Marlyn Allicock, Folefac Atem, Florence J Dallo, Bijal A Balasubramanian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Role of Health Information Technology in Improving Awareness of Human Papillomavirus and Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Among U.S. Adults.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tiffany B KindrattPublic Health Program, Department of Kinesiology, College of Nursing and Health Innovation, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3513-5290
Marlyn AllicockDepartment of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health Dallas, UTHealth, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Dallas, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2114-6768
Folefac AtemDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, School of Public Health Dallas, UTHealth, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Dallas, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1142-7806
Florence J DalloDepartment of Public and Environmental Wellness, School of Health Sciences, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0093-1289
Bijal A BalasubramanianCenter for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2844-9048
University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas · USOakland University · USThe University of Texas at Arlington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe growth of electronic medical records and use of patient portals have allowed for patients and health care providers to communicate via email and direct messaging between health care visits. Email patient-provider communication (PPC) may enhance traditional face-to-face PPC by allowing patients to ask questions, receive clear explanations, engage in shared decision-making, and confirm their understanding between in-person visits. Despite increasing trends in the use of email PPC since the early 2000s, few studies have evaluated associations between email PPC and the uptake of preventive services.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to determine associations between the use of email PPC and the likelihood of undergoing breast, cervical, and colon cancer screenings among adults who have received health care in the past 12 months.

methodsSecondary, cross-sectional data from the 2011-2015 National Health Interview Survey were combined and analyzed. For each cancer screening, inclusion criteria were based on the age of screening recommendations and prior history of cancer diagnosis (n=35,912 for breast, n=48,512 for cervical, and n=45,884 for colon). The independent variable was whether adults used email PPC in the past 12 months (yes or no). The dependent variables were whether (1) women (aged ≥40 years) received a mammogram in the past 12 months; (2) women (aged 21-65 years) received a Pap test in the past 12 months; and (3) individuals (aged ≥50 years) received a colon cancer screening in the past 12 months. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted.

resultsAdults who reported receiving all three cancer screenings in the past 12 months were more likely to be non-Hispanic White; be married or living with a partner; have a bachelor's degree or higher education level; have health insurance coverage; and perceive their health as excellent, very good, or good (all P<.001). Men were more likely to receive colon cancer screenings than women (P<.001). Multivariable logistic regression models showed women who used email to communicate with their health care providers had greater odds of receiving breast (odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 95% CI 1.20-1.44) and cervical (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20) cancer screenings than women who did not use email PPC. Adults who used email to communicate with their health care providers had 1.55 times greater odds (95% CI 1.42-1.69) of receiving a colon cancer screening than those who did not use email PPC.

conclusionsOur results demonstrate that email PPC is a marker of increased likelihood of adults completing age-appropriate cancer screenings, particularly breast, cervical, and colon cancer screenings. More research is needed to examine other factors related to the reasons for and quality of email PPC between patients and health care providers and determine avenues for health education and intervention to further explore this association.

Indexed as

cancer screeningscolon cancer screeningemailmammogramNational Health Interview Surveyonline, patient portalsPap testpatient-provider communication

Identifiers

PMID34328421
PMCPMC8367146
OpenAlexW3167732227

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.