Top

Supportive Care in Cancer

Published in:

01-08-2009 | Original Article

Patients with cancer and e-mail: implications for clinical communication

Authors: David Dilts, Sheila H. Ridner, Alejandro Franco, Barbara Murphy

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 8/2009

Abstract

Goals of work

The aim of this study was to collect information about cancer patients’ current e-mail use and willingness to communicate with healthcare providers by e-mail.

Materials and methods

A cohort of 208 patients, undergoing treatment at a comprehensive cancer center in an urban academic medical center in southeastern USA, participated in this descriptive study. An Internet use questionnaire was developed and then used to survey patients with cancer.

Main results

The majority of patients indicated that e-mail would be a desirable method of clinical communication. A subset of patients would not use e-mail for clinical purposes even if they had access.

Conclusions

E-mail communication may be an acceptable form of communication among patients, nurses, and other members of the support team. Because a subset of patients will not use this form of communication, assessment of individual patient preferences for use of e-mail is indicated prior to enrolling them in an e-mail communication program.

Baker L, Wagner TH, Singer S, Bundorf MK (2003) Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information results from a national survey. JAMA 289:2400–2406. doi:10.1001/jama.289.18.2400 PubMedCrossRef

Borowitz SM, Wyatt JC (1998) The origin, content, and workload of e-mail consultations. JAMA 280:1321–1324. doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1321 PubMedCrossRef

California Health Foundation (2000) Ethics survey of consumer attitudes about health web sites. Conducted by Cyber Dialogue and the Institute for the Future

Couchman GR, Forjuoh SN, Rascoe TG (2001) E-mail communications in family practice: what do patients expect. J Fam Pract 50:414–418PubMed

Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manage Sci 32:554–571CrossRef

Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–340. doi:10.2307/249008 CrossRef

Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J (2002) Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin 52:134–149PubMedCrossRef

Eysenbach G (2003) The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 53:356–371PubMedCrossRef

Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL (1998) Responses to unsolicited patient e-mail requests for medical advice on the world wide web. JAMA 280:1333–1335. doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1333 PubMedCrossRef

10.

Fang K (1998) An analysis of electronic-mail usage. Comput Human Behav 14:349–374. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(98)00012-0 CrossRef

11.

Fox S, Fallows D (2003) Health searches and email have become more commonplace, but there is room for improvement in searches and overall internet access. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC

12.

Fox S, Rainie L (2000) The online health care revolution: how the web helps Americans take better care of themselves. The Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC

13.

Fridsma DB, Ford P, Altman R (1994) A survey of patient access to electronic mail: attitudes, barriers, and opportunities. Proceeds of the Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care 18:15–19

14.

Hughes JA, Pakieser RA (1999) Factors that impact nurses’ use of electronic mail (e-mail). Comput Nurs 17:251–258PubMed

15.

Kagan SH, Clarke SP, Happ MB (2005) Surgeon’s and nurse’s use of e-mail communication with head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck 27:108–113. doi:10.1002/hed.20119 PubMedCrossRef

16.

Kagan SH, Clarke SP, Happ MB (2005) Head and neck cancer patient and family member interest in and use of e-mail to communicate with clinicians. Head Neck 27:976–981. doi:10.1002/hed.20263 PubMedCrossRef

17.

Kane B, Sands DZ (1998) Guidelines for the clinical use of electronic mail with patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 5(1):104–111PubMed

18.

Karahanna E, Straub DW (1999) The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Inf Manage 35:237–250. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00096-2 CrossRef

19.

Katzen C, Solan MJ, Dicker AP (2005) E-mail and oncology: a survey of radiation oncology patients and their attitudes to a new generation of health communication. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 8:189–193. doi:10.1038/sj.pcan.4500797 PubMedCrossRef

20.

Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Brandt AM (1998) Electronic patient–physician communication: problems and promise. Ann Intern Med 129:495–500PubMed

21.

Mandl KD, Kohane IS (1999) Healthconnect: clinical grade patient–physician communication. Proceedings, AMIA Annual Symposium, pp 849–853

22.

Mandl KD, Feit S, Pena BMG, Kohane IS (2000) Growth and determinants of access in patient e-mail and internet use. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 154:508–511PubMed

23.

Mandl KD, Katz SB, Kohane IS (1998) Social equity and access to the world wide web and e-mail: implications for design and implementation of medical applications. Proceedings, AMIA Annual Symposium 215–9

24.

Merriman B, Ades T, Seffrin JR (2002) Health literacy in the information age: Communicating cancer information to patients and families. CA Cancer J Clin 52:130–133PubMedCrossRef

25.

Metz JM, Devine P, DeNittis A, Jones H, Hampshire M, Goldwein J et al (2003) A multi-institutional study of internet utilization by radiation oncology patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:1201–1205. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00407-3 PubMedCrossRef

26.

National_Telecommunications_and_Information_Administration (2001) Definition: e-mail. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC

27.

National_Telecommunications_and_Information_Administration (2000) Falling through the net: defining the digital divide. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC

28.

National_Telecommunications_and_Information_Administration (2000) Falling through the net: toward digital inclusion, a report on Americans’ access to technology tools. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC

29.

Neill RA, Mainous AG 3rd, Clark JR, Hagen MD (1994) The utility of electronic mail as a medium for patient–physician communication. Arch Fam Med 3:268. doi:10.1001/archfami.3.3.268 PubMedCrossRef

30.

Neinstein L (2000) Utilization of electronic communication (e-mail) with patients at university and college health centers. J Adolesc Health 27(1):6–11. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(99)00119-6 PubMedCrossRef

31.

Norum J (2001) Evaluation of Norwegian cancer hospitals’ web sites and explorative survey among cancer patients on their use of the Internet. J Med Internet Res 3(4):e30 (online)PubMedCrossRef

32.

Norum J, Grev A, Moen MA, Balteskard L, Holthe K (2003) Information and communication technology (ICT) in oncology. Patients’ and relatives’ experiences and suggestions. Support Care Cancer 11:286–293PubMed

33.

Robinson C, Flowers CW, Alperson BL, Norris KC (1999) Internet access and use among disadvantaged inner-city patients. JAMA 281:988–989. doi:10.1001/jama.281.11.988-a PubMedCrossRef

34.

Speilberg A (1998) On call and online: sociohistorical, legal, and ethical implications of e-mail for the patient–physician relationship. JAMA 280:1353–1359. doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1353 CrossRef

35.

Taylor H, Leitman R (2001) Study reveals big potential for the internet to improve doctor-patient relations. Harris Interact Health Care News 1:1

36.

Teo SHT, Lim VKG, Lai RYC (1999) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in internet usage. Omega. Int J Manage Sci 27(1):25–37

Title: Patients with cancer and e-mail: implications for clinical communication
Authors: David Dilts
Sheila H. Ridner
Alejandro Franco
Barbara Murphy
Publication date: 01-08-2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 8/2009
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-008-0538-6

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Goals of work

Materials and methods

Main results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2009

Prospective assessment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy due to weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer (CSP-HOR 02 study)

Changes in employment and household income during the 24 months following a cancer diagnosis

Patient and practice impact of capecitabine compared to taxanes in first-/second-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer

Depression in lung cancer patients: is the HADS an effective screening tool?

Cancer-associated hypercalcemia: validation of a bedside prognostic score

What are the unmet supportive care needs of people with cancer? A systematic review

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer