ArticleJAMIA open2025
Primary care physicians' experiences with inbox triage.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Work outside of work: after-hours use of the electronic medical record among residents at an academic veterinary teaching hospital.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Many primary care physicians (PCPs) feel overwhelmed by the number of electronic health record inbox messages they receive. The objective of this study was to characterize PCPs' experiences with inbox triage-the process of reviewing inbox messages and deciding when and how to address them. Materials and Methods: We conducted 3 focus groups and 1 individual interview with 9 PCPs at an academic medical center and coded the transcripts for themes related to inbox triage. Results: We identified 5 themes in PCPs' experiences with inbox triage: (1) inbox triage is a continuous process; (2) inbox triage involves different team members performing multiple activities, including identifying messages better addressed through synchronous care, preparing messages to be reviewed by PCPs, and prioritizing messages; (3) PCPs prioritize messages based on multiple factors including clinical urgency, time constraints, and team member involvement; (4) team support for inbox triage varies by clinical experience, team stability, and co-location; and (5) patient expectations and clinic practices help make inbox triage a continuous process, requiring PCPs to establish personal policies to constrain inbox work. Discussion: Designers of clinic workflows, healthcare policy, and health information technology should aim to support the diverse activities involved in inbox triage, message prioritization based on multiple factors, and the collaborative process of establishing and communicating messaging norms. Conclusion: Inbox triage is a collaborative and continuous process requiring PCPs to evaluate multiple aspects of each message, find time to address those messages during busy clinic days, and negotiate different expectations for messaging behavior.
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.