ArticleJAMIA open2024
Inbox message prioritization and management approaches in primary care.
Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of studies on secure messaging through patient portals: persistent challenges and potential solutions.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Comparison of Emotional Content in Text Responses From Physicians and AI Chatbots to Patient Health Queries: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Primary care physicians' experiences with inbox triage.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Primary care staff members' experiences with managing electronic health record inbox messages.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Patient messaging to clinicians has dramatically increased since the pandemic, leading to informatics efforts to categorize incoming messages. We examined how message prioritization (as distinct from categorization) occurs in primary care, and how primary care clinicians managed their inbox workflows. Materials and Methods: Semi-structured interviews and inbox work observations with 11 primary care clinicians at MedStar Health. We analyzed interview and observation transcripts and identified themes and subthemes related to prioritization and inbox workflows. Results: Clinicians widely reported that they did not prioritize messages due to time constraints and the necessity of attending to all messages, which made any prioritization purely additive to overall inbox time. We identified 6 themes and 14 subthemes related to managing inbox workloads. The top themes were (1) establishing workflow norms with different teams, primarily medical assistants (MAs); (2) boundary-setting with patients, other clinicians, and with themselves; and (3) message classification heuristics that allowed clinicians to mentally categorize messages that required follow-up, messages that could be quickly deleted or acknowledged, and purely informational messages that ranged in clinical utility from tedious to valuable for care coordination. Discussion: Time constraints in primary care prevent clinicians from prioritizing their inbox messages for increased efficiency. Involvement of MAs and co-located staff was successful; however, standardization was needed for messaging workflows that involved centralized resources like call centers. Organizations should consider ways in which they can support the establishment and maintenance of boundaries, to avoid this responsibility falling entirely on clinicians. Conclusion: Clinicians generally lack the time to prioritize patient messages. Future research should explore the efficacy of collaborative inbox workflows for time-savings and management of patient messages.
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.