Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Electronic Health Information Exchange Opportunities for Self-management of Care: Responses from Older Adults With and Without Cancer History in the United States

  • Hot Topic
  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Study

Of 15.5 million US cancer survivors, 80% are ≥ 55 years. Supporting older patients in care self-management through electronic health information (EHI) exchange may enhance recovery. We assessed: (1) perceived importance of EHI access to adults ≥ 55 years (incl survivors) and (2) age-related preferences for EHI exchange.

Recent Findings

Older adults are one of the fastest-growing user groups for internet/technologies. Most older adults 55–64 years are active internet users, and use among adults ≥ 65 years is growing quickly as baby boomers mature. Understanding EHI patient-provider exchange preferences may provide opportunities for older patients but also begin to address the future needs of other patient populations, including cancer survivors.

Summary

We observed a “digital divide” for perceived importance of EHI access and EHI exchange interests. Engaging older adults (i.e., ≥ 75 years) to improve comfort/experience with technologies may support EHI use in self-management. Survivors may have distinct EHI needs/preferences than older adults without cancer history.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Parry C, Kent EE, Mariotto AB, Alfano CM, Rowland JH. Cancer survivors: a booming population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2011;20(10):1996–2005. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rowland JH, Bellizzi KM. Cancer survivorship issues: life after treatment and implications for an aging population. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(24):2662–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.8361.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. •• Bluethmann SM, Mariotto AB, Rowland JH. Anticipating the “Silver tsunami”: prevalence trajectories and comorbidity burden among older cancer survivors in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;25:1029–36. According to this report from the NCI Office of Cancer Survivorship, the prevalent population is projected to grow to 26.1 million by 2040, and will include 73% of survivors who are 65 years and older. Comorbidity burden was highest in the oldest survivors (those ≥ 85 years) and worst among lung cancer survivors.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Risendal BC, Dwyer A, Seidel RW, et al, Meeting the challenge of cancer survivorship in public health: results from the evaluation of the chronic disease self-management program for cancer survivors. Evidence-Based Programming for Older Adults:172, 2015.

  6. Hausman J, Ganz PA, Sellers TP, Rosenquist J. Journey forward: the new face of cancer survivorship care. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17:e187–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clauser SB, Wagner EH, Aiello Bowles EJ, Tuzzio L, Greene SM. Improving modern cancer care through information technology. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(5):S198–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.014.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Emery EE, Lapidos S, Eisenstein AR, Ivan II, Golden RL. The BRIGHTEN program: implementation and evaluation of a program to bridge resources of an interdisciplinary geriatric health team via electronic networking. The Gerontologist. 2012;52(6):857–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kiel JM. The digital divide: Internet and e-mail use by the elderly. Inform Health Soc Care. 2005;30:19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Choi NG, Dinitto DM. The digital divide among low-income homebound older adults: Internet use patterns, ehealth literacy, and attitudes toward computer/internet use. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(5):e93. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2645.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kontos E, Blake KD, Chou WS, et al. Predictors of eHealth usage: insights on the digital divide from the health information national trends survey 2012. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(7):e172. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3117.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chesser A, Burke A, Reyes J, et al. Navigating the digital divide: a systematic review of eHealth literacy in underserved populations in the United States. Inform Health Soc Care. 2015;41:1–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Charness N, Boot WR. Aging and information technology use: potential and barriers. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009;18(5):253–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01647.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zickuhr K, Madden M. Older adults and internet use. Pew Internet & American Life Project 6, 2012.

  15. de Moor JS, Mariotto AB, Parry C, Alfano CM, Padgett L, Kent EE, et al. Cancer survivors in the united states: prevalence across the survivorship trajectory and implications for care. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2013;22(4):561–70. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Beckjord EB, Arora NK, McLaughlin W, Oakley-Girvan I, Hamilton AS, Hesse BW. Health-related information needs in a large and diverse sample of adult cancer survivors: implications for cancer care. J Cancer Surviv. 2008;2(3):179–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-008-0055-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Beckjord EB, Rechis R, Nutt S, Shulman L, Hesse BW. What do people affected by cancer think about electronic health information exchange? Results from the 2010 LIVESTRONG electronic health information exchange survey and the 2008 health information national trends survey. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2011;7(4):237–41. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2011.000324.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rutten LJF, Vieux SN, St Sauver JL, et al. Patient perceptions of electronic medical records use and ratings of care quality. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2014;5:17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zulman DM, Jenchura EC, Cohen DM, Lewis ET, Houston TK, Asch SM. How can eHealth technology address challenges related to multimorbidity? Perspectives from patients with multiple chronic conditions. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(8):1063–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3222-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Stellefson M, Alber JM, Wang MQ, Eddy JM, Chaney BH, Chaney JD. Use of health information and communication technologies to promote health and manage behavioral risk factors associated with chronic disease: applications in the field of health education. Am J Health Educ. 2015;46(4):185–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2015.1043064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schulz R, Wahl H, Matthews JT, et al. Advancing the aging and technology agenda in gerontology. The Gerontologist, 2014.

  22. Peek ST, Wouters EJ, van Hoof J, et al. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inf. 2014;83(4):235–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Massey PM. Where do US adults who do not use the internet get health information? Examining digital health information disparities from 2008 to 2013. J Health Commun. 2016;21(1):118–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1058444.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moser RP, Naveed S, Cantor D, et al. Integrative analytic methods using population-level cross-sectional data. HINTS data briefs. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Finney Rutten LJ, Davis T, Beckjord EB, Blake K, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Picking up the pace: changes in method and frame for the health information national trends survey (2011–2014). J Health Commun. 2012;17(8):979–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.700998.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. • Serrano KJ, Yu M, Riley WT, et al. Willingness to exchange health information via mobile devices: findings from a population-based survey. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14:34–40. Respondents in this nationally representative survey were less willing via mobile devices to exchange information considered sensitive or complex. Age, socioeconomic factors, and trust in professional information were associated with willingness to engage in mobile health information exchange and should be considered when developing and tailoring mobile technologies for patient-clinician communication.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen Y, Lee BD, Kirk RM. Internet use among older adults: constraints and opportunities, IGI Global, 2012.

  28. Stellefson M, Chaney B, Barry AE, Chavarria E, Tennant B, Walsh-Childers K, et al. Web 2.0 chronic disease self-management for older adults: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(2):e35. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2439.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first health information national trends survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2618–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Arora NK, Hesse BW, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, Clayman ML, Croyle RT. Frustrated and confused: the American public rates its cancer-related information-seeking experiences. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(3):223–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0406-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hesse BW, Arora NK, Burke Beckjord E, Finney Rutten LJ. Information support for cancer survivors. Cancer. 2008;112(S11):2529–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Blumenthal D. Launching HIteCH. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):382–5. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp0912825.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(6):501–4. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1006114.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Miller LMS, Bell RA. Online health information seeking: the influence of age, information trustworthiness, and search challenges. J Aging Health. 2012;24(3):525–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264311428167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. • Hesse BW, Greenberg AJ, Rutten LJF. The role of internet resources in clinical oncology: promises and challenges. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(12):767–76. In this commentary, findings from the NCI's Health Information National Trends Survey are reviewed to highlight Internet trends related to oncology patients. Future trends are discussed, including examples of “connected health” in oncology and an evolution in how networks can support person-centered and family-centered care.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chou WS, Hunt YM, Beckjord EB, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Social media use in the united states: implications for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(4):e48. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Lustria MLA, Smith SA, Hinnant CC. Exploring digital divides: an examination of eHealth technology use in health information seeking, communication and personal health information management in the USA. Health Informatics Journal. 2011;17(3):224–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458211414843.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fox S, Duggan M. The diagnosis difference: a portrait of the 45% of US adults living with chronic health conditions. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  39. •• American Society of Clinical Oncology. The state of cancer care in america, 2017: a report by the American Society Of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(4):e353–94. In this fourth annual State of Cancer Care in America report, ASCO describes the opportunities and challenges that confront the cancer care community. They highlight the need for rapid transformation in healthcare built on (1) new investments in science and insurance coverage, (2) new payment systems that emphasize quality, and (3) new data sources and health care systems.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Health Sciences The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, T3424, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA

    Shirley M. Bluethmann & Bradford W. Hesse

  2. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Shirley M. Bluethmann

  3. Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA, USA

    Shirley M. Bluethmann

  4. ICF International, Rockville, MD, USA

    Kisha I. Coa

  5. Survivorship, American Cancer Society, Inc., Washington, DC, USA

    Catherine M. Alfano

Authors
  1. Shirley M. Bluethmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kisha I. Coa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine M. Alfano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bradford W. Hesse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shirley M. Bluethmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Shirley M. Bluethmann, Kisha I. Coa, Catherine M. Alfano, and Bradford W. Hesse declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Dr. Bluethmann was a Cancer Prevention Postdoctoral Fellow in the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute at the time this report was prepared

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bluethmann, S.M., Coa, K.I., Alfano, C.M. et al. Electronic Health Information Exchange Opportunities for Self-management of Care: Responses from Older Adults With and Without Cancer History in the United States. Curr Oncol Rep 20, 30 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-018-0674-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-018-0674-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation