ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Primary care staff members' experiences with managing electronic health record inbox messages.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Inbox Problem: Standardized Protocols for Primary Care Teams to Address Patient Messages.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- A scoping review of studies on secure messaging through patient portals: persistent challenges and potential solutions.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Primary care physicians' experiences with inbox triage.JAMIA open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveClinical staff often help clinicians review and respond to messages from patients. This study aimed to characterize primary care staff members' experiences with inbox work. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this qualitative study, we conducted direct observations and focus groups with clinical staff at 4 academic primary care clinics. We used inductive thematic analysis to code the resulting notes and transcripts for themes in staff members' experience with inbox work.
resultsNine medical assistants and 3 nurses participated in the study. Staff described inbox work as fragmented, feeling like an assembly line, requiring frequent communication with other team members to clarify and manage tasks, and requiring navigation of expectations that varied between patients, clinicians, and clinics. Staff described some messages as being more difficult to manage due to how requests were posed, challenges with subsequent communication, and mismatches between data from different sources. Staff also described how tools that structured or automated message management aided inbox work. DISCUSSION: Staff addressed routine messages by following known protocols and appreciated tools that structured their inbox work. However, staff also regularly encountered messages with information that conflicted with clinic records or that contained multiple, redundant, or vague requests. Addressing these messages required additional work to clarify information (ie, data work) and manage resulting tasks (ie, articulation work).
conclusionClinic workflows and health information technology should support not only the readily standardized work of addressing routine messages but also the more varied work of preparing messages to be addressed in the first place.
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.