Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 154:508–511

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 52:130–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 11:286–293

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Management Research in Healthcare, Engineering Management Program, School of Engineering and Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, 401 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA

    David Dilts

  2. Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, 461 21st Avenue South, Godchaux Hall #525, Nashville, TN, 37240, USA

    Sheila H. Ridner

  3. Calle 114, 20-58, Apto. 502, Bogota, Columbia

    Alejandro Franco

  4. Hematology/Oncology Division, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    Barbara Murphy

Authors
  1. David Dilts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheila H. Ridner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alejandro Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barbara Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheila H. Ridner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dilts, D., Ridner, S.H., Franco, A. et al. Patients with cancer and e-mail: implications for clinical communication. Support Care Cancer 17, 1049–1056 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-008-0538-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-008-0538-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation