• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

法国某大学医院患者电子邮件地址的流行病学:病例对照研究。

The Epidemiology of Patients' Email Addresses in a French University Hospital: Case-Control Study.

机构信息

Medical Informatics Department, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

UMRS 1138 - Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM, Paris, France.

出版信息

J Med Internet Res. 2021 Feb 24;23(2):e13992. doi: 10.2196/13992.

DOI:10.2196/13992
PMID:33625375
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7946586/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Health care professionals are caught between the wish of patients to speed up health-related communication via emails and the need for protecting health information.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to analyze the demographic characteristics of patients providing an email, and study the distribution of emails' domain names.

METHODS

We used the information system of the European Hospital Georges Pompidou (HEGP) to identify patients who provided an email address. We used a 1:1 matching strategy to study the demographic characteristics of the patients associated with the presence of an email, and described the characteristics of the emails used (in terms of types of emails-free, business, and personal).

RESULTS

Overall, 4.22% (41,004/971,822) of the total population of patients provided an email address. The year of last contact with the patient is the strongest driver of the presence of an email address (odds ratio [OR] 20.8, 95% CI 18.9-22.9). Patients more likely to provide an email address were treated for chronic conditions and were more likely born between 1950 and 1969 (taking patients born before 1950 as reference [OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.54-1.67], and compared to those born after 1990 [OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.53-0.59]). Of the 41,004 email addresses collected, 37,779 were associated with known email providers, 31,005 email addresses were associated with Google, Microsoft, Orange, and Yahoo!, 2878 with business emails addresses, and 347 email addresses with personalized domain names.

CONCLUSIONS

Emails have been collected only recently in our institution. The importance of the year of last contact probably reflects this recent change in contact information collection policy. The demographic characteristics and especially the age distribution are likely the result of a population bias in the hospital: patients providing email are more likely to be treated for chronic diseases. A risk analysis of the use of email revealed several situations that could constitute a breach of privacy that is both likely and with major consequences. Patients treated for chronic diseases are more likely to provide an email address, and are also more at risk in case of privacy breach. Several common situations could expose their private information. We recommend a very restrictive use of the emails for health communication.

摘要

背景

医疗保健专业人员面临着患者希望通过电子邮件加速与健康相关的沟通,以及保护健康信息的需求之间的矛盾。

目的

我们旨在分析提供电子邮件的患者的人口统计学特征,并研究电子邮件域名的分布。

方法

我们使用欧洲 Georges Pompidou 医院(HEGP)的信息系统来识别提供电子邮件地址的患者。我们使用 1:1 匹配策略来研究与电子邮件存在相关的患者的人口统计学特征,并描述所使用的电子邮件的特征(从免费、商务和个人电子邮件类型方面进行描述)。

结果

总体而言,4.22%(41004/971822)的患者群体提供了电子邮件地址。与患者的最后一次联系年份是存在电子邮件地址的最强驱动因素(优势比[OR]20.8,95%置信区间[CI]18.9-22.9)。更有可能提供电子邮件地址的患者接受的是慢性病治疗,并且更可能出生于 1950 年至 1969 年之间(以出生于 1950 年之前的患者为参考[OR 1.60,95%CI 1.54-1.67],与出生于 1990 年之后的患者相比[OR 0.56,95%CI 0.53-0.59])。在所收集的 41004 个电子邮件地址中,有 37779 个与已知的电子邮件提供商相关联,有 31005 个电子邮件地址与谷歌、微软、Orange 和雅虎相关联,有 2878 个与商务电子邮件地址相关联,有 347 个与个性化域名相关联。

结论

我们的机构最近才开始收集电子邮件。最后一次联系年份的重要性可能反映了最近在联系信息收集政策上的变化。人口统计学特征,尤其是年龄分布,可能是由于医院的人群偏差造成的:提供电子邮件的患者更有可能接受慢性病治疗。对电子邮件使用的风险分析显示了几种可能构成隐私泄露的情况,这些情况既可能发生,又可能产生重大后果。接受慢性病治疗的患者更有可能提供电子邮件地址,并且在隐私泄露的情况下风险更大。几种常见的情况可能会暴露他们的私人信息。我们建议对电子邮件在健康沟通方面的使用进行非常严格的限制。

相似文献

1
The Epidemiology of Patients' Email Addresses in a French University Hospital: Case-Control Study.法国某大学医院患者电子邮件地址的流行病学:病例对照研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Feb 24;23(2):e13992. doi: 10.2196/13992.
2
Assessment of Employee Susceptibility to Phishing Attacks at US Health Care Institutions.美国医疗机构中员工易受网络钓鱼攻击的评估。
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Mar 1;2(3):e190393. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0393.
3
Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals.患者/护理人员与医疗保健专业人员之间用于临床沟通的电子邮件。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11(11):CD007978. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007978.pub2.
4
Email--from "to" to "send".电子邮件——从“收件人”到“发件人”。 (不过这段英文表述不太符合常规逻辑,正常应该是从“发件人”到“收件人”,这里按字面翻译了。)
AAOHN J. 2007 Mar;55(3):127-30. doi: 10.1177/216507990705500305.
5
Usage of insecure E-mail services among researchers with different scientific background.不同科学背景的研究人员使用不安全电子邮件服务的情况。
Med Glas (Zenica). 2011 Aug;8(2):273-6.
6
Pitfalls in computer housekeeping by doctors and nurses in KwaZulu-Natal: no malicious intent.夸祖鲁-纳塔尔省医生和护士在计算机操作管理方面的失误:并无恶意。
BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-S1-S8. Epub 2013 Dec 19.
7
Patient use of email for health care communication purposes across 14 European countries: an analysis of users according to demographic and health-related factors.14个欧洲国家患者使用电子邮件进行医疗保健沟通的情况:根据人口统计学和健康相关因素对用户的分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Mar 6;17(3):e58. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3700.
8
Association between patient-initiated emails and overall 2-year survival in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: Evidence from the real-world setting.患者主动发邮件与接受化疗的癌症患者 2 年总生存率的关联:来自真实环境的证据。
Cancer Med. 2020 Nov;9(22):8552-8561. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3483. Epub 2020 Sep 28.
9
Use of email, cell phone and text message between patients and primary-care physicians: cross-sectional study in a French-speaking part of Switzerland.患者与初级保健医生之间电子邮件、手机和短信的使用:瑞士法语区的横断面研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Oct 5;16(1):549. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1776-9.
10
Association of Peer Comparison Emails With Electronic Health Record Documentation of Cancer Stage by Oncologists.同行比较邮件与肿瘤医生电子病历中癌症分期记录的关联。
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Oct 1;3(10):e2015935. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.15935.

本文引用的文献

1
Usability Assessment of Secure Messaging for Clinical Document Sharing between Health Care Providers and Patients.医疗机构与患者间临床文档共享的安全消息传递的可用性评估
Appl Clin Inform. 2018 Apr;9(2):467-477. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1660521. Epub 2018 Jun 27.
2
The Georges Pompidou University Hospital Clinical Data Warehouse: A 8-years follow-up experience.乔治·蓬皮杜大学医院临床数据仓库:8年随访经验
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jun;102:21-28. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.02.006. Epub 2017 Feb 16.
3
Patient Use of Email, Facebook, and Physician Websites to Communicate with Physicians: A National Online Survey of Retail Pharmacy Users.
患者使用电子邮件、脸书和医生网站与医生沟通:零售药店用户全国在线调查。
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Jan;31(1):45-51. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3374-7.
4
Patient use of email for health care communication purposes across 14 European countries: an analysis of users according to demographic and health-related factors.14个欧洲国家患者使用电子邮件进行医疗保健沟通的情况:根据人口统计学和健康相关因素对用户的分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Mar 6;17(3):e58. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3700.
5
Methodology of integration of a clinical data warehouse with a clinical information system: the HEGP case.临床数据仓库与临床信息系统集成的方法:巴黎公共救助中心案例
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 1):193-7.
6
Older patients' enthusiasm to use electronic mail to communicate with their physicians: cross-sectional survey.老年患者使用电子邮件与医生沟通的积极性:横断面调查。
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Jun 16;11(2):e18. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1143.
7
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.《流行病学观察性研究报告强化(STROBE)声明》:观察性研究报告指南
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X.
8
Physicians' use of email with patients: factors influencing electronic communication and adherence to best practices.医生与患者之间电子邮件的使用:影响电子通信及遵循最佳实践的因素。
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Mar 24;8(1):e2. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.1.e2.
9
New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality.新版国际疾病分类第十版(ICD - 10)的查尔森合并症指数可预测住院死亡率。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Dec;57(12):1288-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.012.
10
The HEGP component-based clinical information system.基于巴黎公共卫生医院集团组件的临床信息系统。
Int J Med Inform. 2003 Mar;69(2-3):115-26. doi: 10.1016/s1386-5056(02)00101-6.