Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Secure Messaging for Diabetes Management: Content Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Secure Messaging for Diabetes Management: Content Analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Secure Messaging for Diabetes Management: Content Analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Secure Messaging for Diabetes Management: Content Analysis
2023
Overview
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.
Publisher
JMIR Publications
Subject
