Secure Messaging for Diabetes Management: Content Analysis.
T2D
communication
diabetes
diabetic control
disease outcomes
engagement
glycemic control
health information
management
message content
messaging
patient portal
patient-provider communication
secure messaging
support
veterans
Journal
JMIR diabetes
ISSN: 2371-4379
Titre abrégé: JMIR Diabetes
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101719410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Mar 2023
23 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
13
06
2022
accepted:
13
02
2023
revised:
20
12
2022
entrez:
23
3
2023
pubmed:
24
3
2023
medline:
24
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Secure messaging use is associated with improved diabetes-related outcomes. However, it is less clear how secure messaging supports diabetes management. We examined secure message topics between patients and clinical team members in a national sample of veterans with type 2 diabetes to understand use of secure messaging for diabetes management and potential associations with glycemic control. We surveyed and analyzed the content of secure messages between 448 US Veterans Health Administration patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinical teams. We also explored the relationship between secure messaging content and glycemic control. Explicit diabetes-related content was the most frequent topic (72.1% of participants), followed by blood pressure (31.7% of participants). Among diabetes-related conversations, 90.7% of patients discussed medication renewals or refills. More patients with good glycemic control engaged in 1 or more threads about blood pressure compared to those with poor control (37.5% vs 27.2%, P=.02). More patients with good glycemic control engaged in 1 more threads intended to share information with their clinical team about an aspect of their diabetes management compared to those with poor control (23.7% vs 12.4%, P=.009). There were few differences in secure messaging topics between patients in good versus poor glycemic control. Those in good control were more likely to engage in informational messages to their team and send messages related to blood pressure. It may be that the specific topic content of the secure messages may not be that important for glycemic control. Simply making it easier for patients to communicate with their clinical teams may be the driving influence between associations previously reported in the literature between secure messaging and positive clinical outcomes in diabetes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Secure messaging use is associated with improved diabetes-related outcomes. However, it is less clear how secure messaging supports diabetes management.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We examined secure message topics between patients and clinical team members in a national sample of veterans with type 2 diabetes to understand use of secure messaging for diabetes management and potential associations with glycemic control.
METHODS
METHODS
We surveyed and analyzed the content of secure messages between 448 US Veterans Health Administration patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinical teams. We also explored the relationship between secure messaging content and glycemic control.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Explicit diabetes-related content was the most frequent topic (72.1% of participants), followed by blood pressure (31.7% of participants). Among diabetes-related conversations, 90.7% of patients discussed medication renewals or refills. More patients with good glycemic control engaged in 1 or more threads about blood pressure compared to those with poor control (37.5% vs 27.2%, P=.02). More patients with good glycemic control engaged in 1 more threads intended to share information with their clinical team about an aspect of their diabetes management compared to those with poor control (23.7% vs 12.4%, P=.009).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There were few differences in secure messaging topics between patients in good versus poor glycemic control. Those in good control were more likely to engage in informational messages to their team and send messages related to blood pressure. It may be that the specific topic content of the secure messages may not be that important for glycemic control. Simply making it easier for patients to communicate with their clinical teams may be the driving influence between associations previously reported in the literature between secure messaging and positive clinical outcomes in diabetes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36951903
pii: v8i1e40272
doi: 10.2196/40272
pmc: PMC10131591
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e40272Informations de copyright
©Stephanie A Robinson, Mark Zocchi, Carolyn Purington, Linda Am, Kathryn DeLaughter, Varsha G Vimalananda, Dane Netherton, Arlene S Ash, Timothy P Hogan, Stephanie L Shimada. Originally published in JMIR Diabetes (https://diabetes.jmir.org), 23.03.2023.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Feb 21;14(1):e32
pubmed: 22353433
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jul 01;18(7):e179
pubmed: 27369696
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Jun 1;25(6):702-708
pubmed: 29444256
Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Mar;74(3):295-301
pubmed: 19150199
Am J Med. 2004 Mar 8;116 Suppl 5A:30S-38S
pubmed: 15019861
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Sep 18;28(10):2176-2183
pubmed: 34339500
Thromb Haemost. 1993 Mar 1;69(3):236-9
pubmed: 8470047
JMIR Med Inform. 2017 Jul 04;5(3):e13
pubmed: 28676467
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Aug 1;26(8-9):855-870
pubmed: 30958532
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Sep 01;24(5):942-949
pubmed: 28371896
Telemed J E Health. 2020 Nov;26(11):1345-1352
pubmed: 32074474
Clin Diabetes. 2020 Jan;38(1):10-38
pubmed: 31975748
J Rural Health. 2019 Jun;35(3):405-417
pubmed: 30444935
J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Oct;8(10):2182-91
pubmed: 20653840
Clin Exp Hypertens. 2004 Oct-Nov;26(7-8):621-8
pubmed: 15702616
JMIR Diabetes. 2021 Nov 19;6(4):e32320
pubmed: 34807834
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 29;22(10):e19477
pubmed: 33118938
Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Dec 14;14:E135
pubmed: 29240552
J Fam Pract. 1999 Nov;48(11):872-8
pubmed: 10907624
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Oct;35(10):2955-2962
pubmed: 32440998
Telemed J E Health. 2016 Sep;22(9):769-77
pubmed: 27027337
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Apr 01;17(4):e86
pubmed: 25842005