Emily Coberly, Suzanne Austin Boren, Mayank Mittal, Justin Wade Davis, Caryn Scoville, Rebecca Chitima-Matsiga, Bin Ge, Adam Cullina, Robert A Logan, William C Steinmann, Robert H Hodge
{"title":"基于medlineplus的健康信息处方:电子邮件与纸质递送的比较。","authors":"Emily Coberly, Suzanne Austin Boren, Mayank Mittal, Justin Wade Davis, Caryn Scoville, Rebecca Chitima-Matsiga, Bin Ge, Adam Cullina, Robert A Logan, William C Steinmann, Robert H Hodge","doi":"10.14236/jhi.v20i3.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The internet can provide evidence-based patient education to overcome time constraints of busy ambulatory practices. Health information prescriptions (HIPs) can be effectively integrated into clinic workflow, but compliance to visit health information sites such as MedlinePlus is limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare the efficacy of paper (pHIP) and email (eHIP) links to deliver HIPs; evaluate patient satisfaction with the HIP process and MedlinePlus information; assess reasons for noncompliance to HIPs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Of 948 patients approached at two internal medicine clinics affiliated with an academic medical centre, 592 gave informed consent after meeting the inclusion criteria. In this randomised controlled trial, subjects were randomised to receive pHIP or eHIP for accessing an intermediate website that provided up to five MedlinePlus links for physician-selected HIP conditions. Patients accessing the intermediate website were surveyed by email to assess satisfaction with the health information. Survey non-responders were contacted by telephone to determine the reasons for no response.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and eighty-one patients accessed the website, with significantly more 'filling' eHIP than pHIP (38% vs 23%; P < 0.001). Most (82%) survey respondents found the website information useful, with 77% favouring email for future HIPs delivery. Lack of time, forgot, lost instructions or changed mind were reasons given for not accessing the websites.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Delivery of MedlinePlus-based HIPs in clinic is more effective using email prescriptions than paper. Satisfaction with the HIP information was high, but overall response was low and deserves further investigation to improve compliance and related outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":30591,"journal":{"name":"Informatics in Primary Care","volume":"20 3","pages":"197-205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"MedlinePlus-based health information prescriptions: a comparison of email vs paper delivery.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Coberly, Suzanne Austin Boren, Mayank Mittal, Justin Wade Davis, Caryn Scoville, Rebecca Chitima-Matsiga, Bin Ge, Adam Cullina, Robert A Logan, William C Steinmann, Robert H Hodge\",\"doi\":\"10.14236/jhi.v20i3.25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The internet can provide evidence-based patient education to overcome time constraints of busy ambulatory practices. Health information prescriptions (HIPs) can be effectively integrated into clinic workflow, but compliance to visit health information sites such as MedlinePlus is limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare the efficacy of paper (pHIP) and email (eHIP) links to deliver HIPs; evaluate patient satisfaction with the HIP process and MedlinePlus information; assess reasons for noncompliance to HIPs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Of 948 patients approached at two internal medicine clinics affiliated with an academic medical centre, 592 gave informed consent after meeting the inclusion criteria. In this randomised controlled trial, subjects were randomised to receive pHIP or eHIP for accessing an intermediate website that provided up to five MedlinePlus links for physician-selected HIP conditions. Patients accessing the intermediate website were surveyed by email to assess satisfaction with the health information. Survey non-responders were contacted by telephone to determine the reasons for no response.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and eighty-one patients accessed the website, with significantly more 'filling' eHIP than pHIP (38% vs 23%; P < 0.001). Most (82%) survey respondents found the website information useful, with 77% favouring email for future HIPs delivery. Lack of time, forgot, lost instructions or changed mind were reasons given for not accessing the websites.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Delivery of MedlinePlus-based HIPs in clinic is more effective using email prescriptions than paper. Satisfaction with the HIP information was high, but overall response was low and deserves further investigation to improve compliance and related outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":30591,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Informatics in Primary Care\",\"volume\":\"20 3\",\"pages\":\"197-205\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Informatics in Primary Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v20i3.25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informatics in Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v20i3.25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
摘要
背景:互联网可以提供基于证据的患者教育,以克服繁忙的门诊实践的时间限制。健康信息处方(HIPs)可以有效地集成到诊所工作流程中,但访问MedlinePlus等健康信息网站的依从性有限。目的:比较纸质链接(pHIP)与电子链接(eHIP)在髋关节置换术中的效果;评估患者对髋关节置换术和MedlinePlus信息的满意度;评估不符合HIPs的原因。方法:在某学术医疗中心附属的两个内科诊所就诊的948例患者中,592例在符合纳入标准后给予知情同意。在这项随机对照试验中,受试者被随机分配接受pHIP或eHIP,以访问一个中间网站,该网站为医生选择的HIP条件提供多达五个MedlinePlus链接。通过电子邮件调查访问中间网站的患者对健康信息的满意度。我们通过电话联系未答复调查的人,以确定没有答复的原因。结果:181名患者访问了该网站,eHIP的“填充”率明显高于pHIP (38% vs 23%;P < 0.001)。大多数(82%)受访者认为网站信息很有用,77%的人倾向于通过电子邮件发送未来的HIPs。没有时间,忘记,丢失指示或改变主意是不访问网站的原因。结论:基于medlineplas的HIPs在临床中使用电子处方比纸质处方更有效。对HIP信息的满意度很高,但总体反应较低,值得进一步调查以提高依从性和相关结果。
MedlinePlus-based health information prescriptions: a comparison of email vs paper delivery.
Background: The internet can provide evidence-based patient education to overcome time constraints of busy ambulatory practices. Health information prescriptions (HIPs) can be effectively integrated into clinic workflow, but compliance to visit health information sites such as MedlinePlus is limited.
Objective: Compare the efficacy of paper (pHIP) and email (eHIP) links to deliver HIPs; evaluate patient satisfaction with the HIP process and MedlinePlus information; assess reasons for noncompliance to HIPs.
Method: Of 948 patients approached at two internal medicine clinics affiliated with an academic medical centre, 592 gave informed consent after meeting the inclusion criteria. In this randomised controlled trial, subjects were randomised to receive pHIP or eHIP for accessing an intermediate website that provided up to five MedlinePlus links for physician-selected HIP conditions. Patients accessing the intermediate website were surveyed by email to assess satisfaction with the health information. Survey non-responders were contacted by telephone to determine the reasons for no response.
Results: One hundred and eighty-one patients accessed the website, with significantly more 'filling' eHIP than pHIP (38% vs 23%; P < 0.001). Most (82%) survey respondents found the website information useful, with 77% favouring email for future HIPs delivery. Lack of time, forgot, lost instructions or changed mind were reasons given for not accessing the websites.
Conclusions: Delivery of MedlinePlus-based HIPs in clinic is more effective using email prescriptions than paper. Satisfaction with the HIP information was high, but overall response was low and deserves further investigation to improve compliance and related outcomes.