E-mail Communication in the Management of Gastroenterology Patients: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
E-mail correspondence between physicians and patients can be a useful tool to improve communication efficiency, provide economic and ecological benefits, improve therapeutic interventions and adherence, and enhance self-management. The model of self-management in chronic disease has become an integral component of North American and British medicine. From a practical standpoint, the use of e-mail between physicians and patients can complement the self-management model. E-mail communication has many benefits from both patient and physician perspectives. E-mail contact reduces the inefficiencies associated with telecommunications. Physicians are able to better document out-of-office patient encounters and provide access to specialist care for patients in remote locations. This use of e-mail has the potential to increase patient safety through physician approval of self-manager actions, including earlier initiation of needed treatments. Fewer clinic visits afford additional time for new consultations and sicker patients, reducing the overall burden on referral and wait times. The present article reviews some of the literature regarding physician-patient e-mail communication in the general ambulatory setting, in the context of chronic disease and with a specific focus on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The authors provide a framework for the use of e-mail communication in the IBD population, with emphasis on the concept of e-mail use. Also illustrated are the benefits and disadvantages, and examples of the e-mail contract as proposed by the Canadian Medical Protective Association. Examples of specific e-mail communication topics are provided for several IBD scenarios. Potential negative consequences of this mode of communication are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".