Cargando…

Differences in Electronic Personal Health Information Tool Use Between Rural and Urban Cancer Patients in the United States: Secondary Data Analysis

BACKGROUND: Studies have previously shown that rural cancer patients are diagnosed at later stages of disease. This delay is felt throughout treatment and follow-up, reflected in the fact that rural patients often have poorer clinical outcomes compared with their urban counterparts. OBJECTIVE: Few s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Greenberg-Worisek, Alexandra, Ferede, Liaa, Balls-Berry, Joyce, Marigi, Ian, Valentin Mendez, Emily, Bajwa, Numra, Ouk, Melody, Orellana, Minerva, Enders, Felicity
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32773369
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/17352
_version_ 1783574018581856256
author Greenberg-Worisek, Alexandra
Ferede, Liaa
Balls-Berry, Joyce
Marigi, Ian
Valentin Mendez, Emily
Bajwa, Numra
Ouk, Melody
Orellana, Minerva
Enders, Felicity
author_facet Greenberg-Worisek, Alexandra
Ferede, Liaa
Balls-Berry, Joyce
Marigi, Ian
Valentin Mendez, Emily
Bajwa, Numra
Ouk, Melody
Orellana, Minerva
Enders, Felicity
author_sort Greenberg-Worisek, Alexandra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Studies have previously shown that rural cancer patients are diagnosed at later stages of disease. This delay is felt throughout treatment and follow-up, reflected in the fact that rural patients often have poorer clinical outcomes compared with their urban counterparts. OBJECTIVE: Few studies have explored whether there is a difference in cancer patients’ current use of health information technology tools by residential location. METHODS: Data from 7 cycles of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS, 2003-2017) were merged and analyzed to examine whether differences exist in managing electronic personal health information (ePHI) and emailing health care providers among rural and urban cancer patients. Geographic location was categorized using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCCs). Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine whether associations existed between rural/urban residency and use of health information technology among cancer patients. RESULTS: Of the 3031 cancer patients/survivors who responded across the 7 cycles of HINTS, 797 (26.9%) resided in rural areas. No difference was found between rural and urban cancer patients in having managed ePHI in the past 12 months (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.43-1.40). Rural cancer patients were significantly less likely to email health care providers than their urban counterparts (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The digital divide between rural and urban cancer residents does not extend to general ePHI management; however, electronic communication with providers is significantly lower among rural cancer patients than urban cancer patients. Further research is needed to determine whether such disparities extend to other health information technology tools that might benefit rural cancer patients as well as other chronic conditions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7445607
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74456072020-08-31 Differences in Electronic Personal Health Information Tool Use Between Rural and Urban Cancer Patients in the United States: Secondary Data Analysis Greenberg-Worisek, Alexandra Ferede, Liaa Balls-Berry, Joyce Marigi, Ian Valentin Mendez, Emily Bajwa, Numra Ouk, Melody Orellana, Minerva Enders, Felicity JMIR Cancer Original Paper BACKGROUND: Studies have previously shown that rural cancer patients are diagnosed at later stages of disease. This delay is felt throughout treatment and follow-up, reflected in the fact that rural patients often have poorer clinical outcomes compared with their urban counterparts. OBJECTIVE: Few studies have explored whether there is a difference in cancer patients’ current use of health information technology tools by residential location. METHODS: Data from 7 cycles of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS, 2003-2017) were merged and analyzed to examine whether differences exist in managing electronic personal health information (ePHI) and emailing health care providers among rural and urban cancer patients. Geographic location was categorized using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCCs). Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine whether associations existed between rural/urban residency and use of health information technology among cancer patients. RESULTS: Of the 3031 cancer patients/survivors who responded across the 7 cycles of HINTS, 797 (26.9%) resided in rural areas. No difference was found between rural and urban cancer patients in having managed ePHI in the past 12 months (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.43-1.40). Rural cancer patients were significantly less likely to email health care providers than their urban counterparts (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The digital divide between rural and urban cancer residents does not extend to general ePHI management; however, electronic communication with providers is significantly lower among rural cancer patients than urban cancer patients. Further research is needed to determine whether such disparities extend to other health information technology tools that might benefit rural cancer patients as well as other chronic conditions. JMIR Publications 2020-08-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7445607/ /pubmed/32773369 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/17352 Text en ©Alexandra Greenberg-Worisek, Liaa Ferede, Joyce Balls-Berry, Ian Marigi, Emily Valentin Mendez, Numra Bajwa, Melody Ouk, Minerva Orellana, Felicity Enders. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (http://cancer.jmir.org), 10.08.2020. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Cancer, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://cancer.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Greenberg-Worisek, Alexandra
Ferede, Liaa
Balls-Berry, Joyce
Marigi, Ian
Valentin Mendez, Emily
Bajwa, Numra
Ouk, Melody
Orellana, Minerva
Enders, Felicity
Differences in Electronic Personal Health Information Tool Use Between Rural and Urban Cancer Patients in the United States: Secondary Data Analysis
title Differences in Electronic Personal Health Information Tool Use Between Rural and Urban Cancer Patients in the United States: Secondary Data Analysis
title_full Differences in Electronic Personal Health Information Tool Use Between Rural and Urban Cancer Patients in the United States: Secondary Data Analysis
title_fullStr Differences in Electronic Personal Health Information Tool Use Between Rural and Urban Cancer Patients in the United States: Secondary Data Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Differences in Electronic Personal Health Information Tool Use Between Rural and Urban Cancer Patients in the United States: Secondary Data Analysis
title_short Differences in Electronic Personal Health Information Tool Use Between Rural and Urban Cancer Patients in the United States: Secondary Data Analysis
title_sort differences in electronic personal health information tool use between rural and urban cancer patients in the united states: secondary data analysis
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32773369
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/17352
work_keys_str_mv AT greenbergworisekalexandra differencesinelectronicpersonalhealthinformationtoolusebetweenruralandurbancancerpatientsintheunitedstatessecondarydataanalysis
AT feredeliaa differencesinelectronicpersonalhealthinformationtoolusebetweenruralandurbancancerpatientsintheunitedstatessecondarydataanalysis
AT ballsberryjoyce differencesinelectronicpersonalhealthinformationtoolusebetweenruralandurbancancerpatientsintheunitedstatessecondarydataanalysis
AT marigiian differencesinelectronicpersonalhealthinformationtoolusebetweenruralandurbancancerpatientsintheunitedstatessecondarydataanalysis
AT valentinmendezemily differencesinelectronicpersonalhealthinformationtoolusebetweenruralandurbancancerpatientsintheunitedstatessecondarydataanalysis
AT bajwanumra differencesinelectronicpersonalhealthinformationtoolusebetweenruralandurbancancerpatientsintheunitedstatessecondarydataanalysis
AT oukmelody differencesinelectronicpersonalhealthinformationtoolusebetweenruralandurbancancerpatientsintheunitedstatessecondarydataanalysis
AT orellanaminerva differencesinelectronicpersonalhealthinformationtoolusebetweenruralandurbancancerpatientsintheunitedstatessecondarydataanalysis
AT endersfelicity differencesinelectronicpersonalhealthinformationtoolusebetweenruralandurbancancerpatientsintheunitedstatessecondarydataanalysis