The Use of Technology for Communicating With Clinicians or Seeking Health Information in a Multilingual Urban Cohort: Cross-Sectional Survey

Elaine C Khoong, Natalie A Rivadeneira, Robert A Hiatt, Urmimala Sarkar, Elaine C Khoong, Natalie A Rivadeneira, Robert A Hiatt, Urmimala Sarkar

Abstract

Background: Technology is being increasingly used to communicate health information, but there is limited knowledge on whether these strategies are effective for vulnerable populations, including non-English speaking or low-income individuals.

Objective: This study assessed how language preferences (eg, English, Spanish, or Chinese), smartphone ownership, and the type of clinic for usual source of care (eg, no usual source of care, nonintegrated safety net, integrated safety net, private or community clinic, academic tertiary medical center, or integrated payer-provider) affect technology use for health-related communication.

Methods: From May to September 2017, we administered a nonrandom, targeted survey to 1027 English-, Spanish-, and Chinese-speaking San Francisco residents and used weighted multivariable logistic regression analyses to assess predictors of five technology use outcomes. The three primary predictors of interest-language preference, smartphone ownership, and type of clinic for usual care-were adjusted for age, gender, race or ethnicity, limited English proficiency, educational attainment, health literacy, and health status. Three outcomes focused on use of email, SMS text message, or phone apps to communicate with clinicians. The two other outcomes were use of Web-based health videos or online health support groups.

Results: Nearly one-third of participants watched Web-based health videos (367/1027, 35.74%) or used emails to communicate with their clinician (318/1027, 30.96%). In adjusted analyses, individuals without smartphones had significantly lower odds of texting their clinician (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.27, 95% CI 0.13-0.56), using online health support groups (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.55), or watching Web-based health videos (aOR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.64). Relative to English-speaking survey respondents, individuals who preferred Chinese had lower odds of texting their clinician (aOR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08-0.79), whereas Spanish-speaking survey respondents had lower odds of using apps to communicate with clinicians (aOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16-0.75) or joining an online support group (aOR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10-0.92). Respondents who received care from a clinic affiliated with the integrated safety net, academic tertiary medical center, or integrated payer-provider systems had higher odds than individuals without a usual source of care at using emails, SMS text messages, or apps to communicate with clinicians.

Conclusions: In vulnerable populations, smartphone ownership increases the use of many forms of technology for health purposes, but device ownership itself is not sufficient to increase the use of all technologies for communicating with clinicians. Language preference impacts the use of technology for health purposes even after considering English proficiency. Health system factors impact patients' use of technology-enabled approaches for communicating with clinicians. No single factor was associated with higher odds of using technology for all health purposes; therefore, existing disparities in the use of digital health tools among diverse and vulnerable populations can only be addressed using a multipronged approach.

Keywords: consumer health information; digital divide; health information technology; internet; physician patient relations; social media; vulnerable populations.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Elaine C Khoong, Natalie A Rivadeneira, Robert A Hiatt, Urmimala Sarkar. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 06.04.2020.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The use of technology for health purposes by smartphone ownership and language preference. Percentage is based on the subset of participants without smart phones (N=236) or with smartphones (N=791) for the left and right panel respectively.

References

    1. Crotty BH, Tamrat Y, Mostaghimi A, Safran C, Landon BE. Patient-to-physician messaging: volume nearly tripled as more patients joined system, but per capita rate plateaued. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014 Oct;33(10):1817–22. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1145.
    1. Pew Research Center. 2019. Jul 12, [2019-02-10]. Mobile Fact Sheet
    1. Lyles C, Schillinger D, Sarkar U. Connecting the dots: health information technology expansion and health disparities. PLoS Med. 2015 Jul;12(7):e1001852. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001852.
    1. Veinot TC, Mitchell H, Ancker JS. Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Aug 1;25(8):1080–8. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy052.
    1. Perzynski AT, Roach MJ, Shick S, Callahan B, Gunzler D, Cebul R, Kaelber D, Huml A, Thornton JD, Einstadter D. Patient portals and broadband internet inequality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Sep 1;24(5):927–32. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocx020.
    1. Sarkar U, Karter AJ, Liu JY, Adler NE, Nguyen R, López A, Schillinger D. Social disparities in internet patient portal use in diabetes: evidence that the digital divide extends beyond access. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 May 1;18(3):318–21. doi: 10.1136/jamia.2010.006015.
    1. Anthony DL, Campos-Castillo C, Lim PS. Who isn't using patient portals and why? Evidence and implications from a national sample of US adults. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018 Dec;37(12):1948–54. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05117.
    1. Rodriguez JA, Lipsitz SR, Lyles CR, Samal L. Association between patient portal use and broadband access: a national evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Jan 10;:-. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05633-4.
    1. Health Information National Trends Survey. [2018-09-23]. About HINTS .
    1. Wigfall LT, Friedman DB. Cancer information seeking and cancer-related health outcomes: a scoping review of the health information national trends survey literature. J Health Commun. 2016 Sep;21(9):989–1005. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2016.1184358.
    1. Hiatt RA, Sibley A, Fejerman L, Glantz S, Nguyen T, Pasick R, Palmer N, Perkins A, Potter MB, Somsouk M, Vargas RA, van 't Veer LJ, Ashworth A. The San Francisco Cancer Initiative: a community effort to reduce the population burden of cancer. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018 Jan;37(1):54–61. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1260.
    1. Khoong EC, Le GM, Hoskote M, Rivadeneira NA, Hiatt RA, Sarkar U. Health information-seeking behaviors and preferences of a diverse, multilingual urban cohort. Med Care. 2019 Jun;57(Suppl 6 Suppl 2):S176–83. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001050.
    1. Lee JL, Choudhry NK, Wu AW, Matlin OS, Brennan TA, Shrank WH. Patient use of email, Facebook, and physician websites to communicate with physicians: a national online survey of retail pharmacy users. J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Jan;31(1):45–51. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3374-7.
    1. Singh H, Fox SA, Petersen NJ, Shethia A, Street RL. Older patients' enthusiasm to use electronic mail to communicate with their physicians: cross-sectional survey. J Med Internet Res. 2009 Jun 16;11(2):e18. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1143.
    1. Virji A, Yarnall KS, Krause KM, Pollak KI, Scannell MA, Gradison M, Østbye T. Use of email in a family practice setting: opportunities and challenges in patient- and physician-initiated communication. BMC Med. 2006 Aug 15;4:18. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-4-18.
    1. Newhouse N, Lupiáñez-Villanueva F, Codagnone C, Atherton H. Patient use of email for health care communication purposes across 14 European countries: an analysis of users according to demographic and health-related factors. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Mar 6;17(3):e58. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3700.
    1. Dudas RA, Crocetti M. Pediatric caregiver attitudes toward email communication: survey in an urban primary care setting. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Oct 23;15(10):e228. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2738.
    1. Baptist AP, Thompson M, Grossman KS, Mohammed L, Sy A, Sanders GM. Social media, text messaging, and email-preferences of asthma patients between 12 and 40 years old. J Asthma. 2011 Oct;48(8):824–30. doi: 10.3109/02770903.2011.608460.
    1. Iftikhar R, Abaalkhail B. Health-seeking influence reflected by online health-related messages received on social media: cross-sectional survey. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Nov 16;19(11):e382. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5989.
    1. Taggart T, Grewe M, Conserve D, Gliwa C, Isler MR. Social media and HIV: a systematic review of uses of social media in HIV communication. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Nov 2;17(11):e248. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4387.
    1. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Apr 23;15(4):e85. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1933.
    1. Ratwani RM, Reider J, Singh H. A decade of health information technology usability challenges and the path forward. J Am Med Assoc. 2019 Feb 26;321(8):743–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0161.
    1. Adler-Milstein J, Holmgren A, Kralovec P, Worzala C, Searcy T, Patel V. Electronic health record adoption in US hospitals: the emergence of a digital 'advanced use' divide. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Nov 1;24(6):1142–8. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocx080.
    1. Schickedanz A, Huang D, Lopez A, Cheung E, Lyles CR, Bodenheimer T, Sarkar U. Access, interest, and attitudes toward electronic communication for health care among patients in the medical safety net. J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Jul;28(7):914–20. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2329-5.
    1. American FactFinder - Census Bureau. [2019-11-06]. American FactFinder .
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [2018-02-09]. About the National Health Interview Survey .
    1. Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, Bradley KA, Nugent SM, Baines AD, Vanryn M. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008 May;23(5):561–6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0520-5.
    1. Maneesriwongul W, Dixon JK. Instrument translation process: a methods review. J Adv Nurs. 2004 Oct;48(2):175–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x.
    1. Rivadeneira NA, Hoskote M, Le GM, Nguyen TT, Nápoles AM, Pasick RJ, Sarkar U, Hiatt RA. Advancing cancer control in San Francisco: cancer screening in under-represented populations. Am J Prev Med. 2020 Jan;58(1):e1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.08.024.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O'Neal L, McLeod L, Delacqua G, Delacqua F, Kirby J, Duda SN, REDCap Consortium The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.
    1. Longo DR. Understanding health information, communication, and information seeking of patients and consumers: a comprehensive and integrated model. Health Expect. 2005 Sep;8(3):189–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00339.x.
    1. Rowley J, Johnson F, Sbaffi L. Gender as an influencer of online health information-seeking and evaluation behavior. J Assn Inf Sci Technol. 2017 Jan;68(1):36–47. doi: 10.1002/asi.23597.
    1. Gonzalez M, Sanders-Jackson A, Emory J. Online health information-seeking behavior and confidence in filling out online forms among Latinos: a cross-sectional analysis of the California Health Interview Survey, 2011-2012. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jul 4;18(7):e184. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5065.
    1. Clayman ML, Manganello JA, Viswanath K, Hesse BW, Arora NK. Providing health messages to Hispanics/Latinos: understanding the importance of language, trust in health information sources, and media use. J Health Commun. 2010;15(Suppl 3):252–63. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.522697.
    1. Kontos E, Blake KD, Chou WS, Prestin A. Predictors of eHealth usage: insights on the digital divide from the Health Information National Trends Survey 2012. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jul 16;16(7):e172. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3117.
    1. Iachan R, Berman L, Kyle TM, Martin KJ, Deng Y, Moyse DN, Middleton D, Atienza AA. Weighting nonprobability and probability sample surveys in describing cancer catchment areas. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019 Mar;28(3):471–7. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0797.
    1. Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci. 2008 May;39(2):273–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
    1. Chesser A, Burke A, Reyes J, Rohrberg T. Navigating the digital divide: a systematic review of eHealth literacy in underserved populations in the United States. Inform Health Soc Care. 2016;41(1):1–19. doi: 10.3109/17538157.2014.948171.
    1. San Francisco Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. [2019-11-04]. Digital Equity .
    1. Cheng C, Dunn M. How well are health information websites displayed on mobile phones? Implications for the readability of health information. Health Promot J Austr. 2017 Mar;28(1):15–20. doi: 10.1071/HE15127.
    1. Statista. 2019. [2019-11-04]. Most Common Languages Used on the Internet 2019
    1. Chaet AV, Morshedi B, Wells KJ, Barnes LE, Valdez R. Spanish-language consumer health information technology interventions: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Aug 10;18(8):e214. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5794.
    1. Diamond L, Izquierdo K, Canfield D, Matsoukas K, Gany F. A systematic review of the impact of patient-physician non-English language concordance on quality of care and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug;34(8):1591–606. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-04847-5.
    1. Karliner LS, Napoles-Springer AM, Schillinger D, Bibbins-Domingo K, Pérez-Stable EJ. Identification of limited English proficient patients in clinical care. J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Oct;23(10):1555–60. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0693-y.
    1. Gee GC, Walsemann KM, Takeuchi DT. English proficiency and language preference: testing the equivalence of two measures. Am J Public Health. 2010 Mar;100(3):563–9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.156976.
    1. Housten AJ, Hoover DS, Correa-Fernández V, Strong LL, Heppner WL, Vinci C, Wetter DW, Spears CA, Castro Y. Associations of acculturation with English- and Spanish-language health literacy among bilingual Latino adults. Health Lit Res Pract. 2019 Apr;3(2):e81–9. doi: 10.3928/24748307-20190219-01.
    1. Wang W, Yu N. Coping with a new health culture: acculturation and online health information seeking among Chinese immigrants in the United States. J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Oct;17(5):1427–35. doi: 10.1007/s10903-014-0106-8.
    1. Massey PM, Langellier BA, Sentell T, Manganello J. Nativity and language preference as drivers of health information seeking: examining differences and trends from a US population-based survey. Ethn Health. 2017 Dec;22(6):596–609. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2016.1244745.
    1. Zheng X, Woo BK. E-mental health in ethnic minority: a comparison of YouTube and talk-based educational workshops in dementia. Asian J Psychiatr. 2017 Feb;25:246–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2016.12.002.
    1. Lam NH, Tsiang JT, Woo BK. Exploring the role of YouTube in disseminating psychoeducation. Acad Psychiatry. 2017 Dec;41(6):819–22. doi: 10.1007/s40596-017-0835-9.
    1. Chung K, Augustin F, Esparza S. Development of a Spanish-language hospice video. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2017 Sep;34(8):737–43. doi: 10.1177/1049909116658022.
    1. Lin SC, Lyles CR, Sarkar U, Adler-Milstein J. Are patients electronically accessing their medical records? Evidence from national hospital data. Health Aff (Millwood) 2019 Nov;38(11):1850–7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05437.
    1. Lyles CR, Sarkar U, Ralston JD, Adler N, Schillinger D, Moffet HH, Huang ES, Karter AJ. Patient-provider communication and trust in relation to use of an online patient portal among diabetes patients: The Diabetes and Aging Study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(6):1128–31. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001567.
    1. Ronda MC, Dijkhorst-Oei LT, Rutten GE. Reasons and barriers for using a patient portal: survey among patients with diabetes mellitus. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Nov 25;16(11):e263. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3457.
    1. Sitzia J, Wood N. Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998 Aug;10(4):311–7. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/10.4.311.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit