Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic conditions require ongoing care which not only necessitates support from health care providers outside appointments but also self-management. Web-based tools for text-based patient-provider communication, such as secure messaging, allow for sharing of contextual information and personal narrative in a simple accessible medium, empowering patients and enabling their providers to address emerging care needs. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (1) conduct a systematic search of the published literature and the Internet for Web-based tools for text-based communication between patients and providers; (2) map tool characteristics, their intended use, contexts in which they were used, and by whom; (3) describe the nature of their evaluation; and (4) understand the terminology used to describe the tools. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using the MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database) databases. We summarized information on the characteristics of the tools (structure, functions, and communication paradigm), intended use, context and users, evaluation (study design and outcomes), and terminology. We performed a parallel search of the Internet to compare with tools identified in the published literature. RESULTS: We identified 54 papers describing 47 unique tools from 13 countries studied in the context of 68 chronic health conditions. The majority of tools (77%, 36/47) had functions in addition to communication (eg, viewable care plan, symptom diary, or tracker). Eight tools (17%, 8/47) were described as allowing patients to communicate with the team or multiple health care providers. Most of the tools were intended to support communication regarding symptom reporting (49%, 23/47), and lifestyle or behavior modification (36%, 17/47). The type of health care providers who used tools to communicate with patients were predominantly allied health professionals of various disciplines (30%, 14/47), nurses (23%, 11/47), and physicians (19%, 9/47), among others. Over half (52%, 25/48) of the tools were evaluated in randomized controlled trials, and 23 tools (48%, 23/48) were evaluated in nonrandomized studies. Terminology of tools varied by intervention type and functionality and did not consistently reflect a theme of communication. The majority of tools found in the Internet search were patient portals from 6 developers; none were found among published articles. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based tools for text-based patient-provider communication were identified from a wide variety of clinical contexts and with varied functionality. Tools were most prevalent in contexts where intended use was self-management. Few tools for team-based communication were found, but this may become increasingly important as chronic disease care becomes more interdisciplinary.