Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42635988›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Care Team Response to Patient Portal Message Content and Writing Style.

Mitchell Tang, Lisa S Rotenstein, Ariel D Stern, Rebecca G Mishuris, Michael L Barnett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Mitchell TangHarvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Lisa S RotensteinBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ariel D SternHasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Rebecca G MishurisBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael L BarnettBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Patient portal messages are an increasingly central channel for patient-clinician communication, but there are inequities in how responsive care teams are to messages sent by patients from historically marginalized groups. The reasons driving these disparities are not well understood. Objective: To quantify factors that could potentially explain lower rates of care team response to messages sent by patients from historically marginalized groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used natural language processing to systematically extract message content and writing style features from portal message threads. Messages were from adult patients who sent a medical advice request message from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2023, to a nontrainee physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant at a primary care practice. Data analysis was performed from May 2024 through June 2026. Exposure: Message thread characteristics, including patient demographics, message content, and writing style. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates at which messages were responded to by care teams overall and by the message's originally intended target clinician specifically. Regression analysis quantified the degree to which message content and writing style potentially explain differences in care team response across patient groups. Results: The sample included 3 619 390 patient message threads sent by 511 020 patients. Of the threads, 4.0% were sent by Asian patients, 3.7% by Black patients, 5.9% by Hispanic patients, and 83.0% by White patients. Messages sent by patients from historically marginalized groups (eg, Black and Hispanic patients, patients with only a high school education, and Medicaid beneficiaries) received lower levels of care team response. Compared with White patients, Black patients had a 3.7-percentage point (pp) (95% CI, -4.1 to -3.3 pp; P < .001) lower response rate from the target clinician, representing an 11.6% reduction. Although message content was associated with target clinician response, it could not explain these differences. On the contrary, writing style accounted for 48.0% of the difference for Black patients, 34.9% for Hispanic patients, 60.5% for patients with only a high school education (relative to patients with a college degree), and 42.8% for Medicaid patients (relative to commercially insured patients). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of patient portal messages, writing style was a potential explanation for approximately half of the observed disparities in care team response, highlighting writing style as an important potential source of bias in message triage and a target for intervention.

Indexed as

Patient Care TeamPatient PortalsWritingAdultCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMedia ExposureMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID42635988
PMCPMC13504435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.