Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014;129 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):67-76.
doi: 10.1177/00333549141296S410.

Health-care provider preferences for time-sensitive communications from public health agencies

Debra Revere  1 , Ian Painter  1 , Mark Oberle  1 , Janet G Baseman  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Health-care provider preferences for time-sensitive communications from public health agencies

Debra Revere et al. Public Health Rep. 2014.

Abstract

Objective: The Rapid Emergency Alert Communication in Health (REACH) Trial was a randomized control trial to systematically compare and evaluate the effectiveness of traditional and mobile communication modalities for public health agencies to disseminate time-sensitive information to health-care providers (HCPs). We conducted a sub-study to identify the communication channels by which HCPs preferred receiving public health alerts and advisories.

Methods: Enrolled HCPs were blindly randomized into four message delivery groups to receive time-sensitive public health messages by e-mail, fax, or short message service (SMS) or to a no-message control group. Follow-up interviews were conducted 5-10 days after the message. In the final interview, additional questions were asked regarding HCP preferences for receiving public health alerts and advisories. We examined the relationship between key covariates and preferred method of receiving public health alert and advisory messages.

Results: Gender, age, provider type, and study site showed statistically significant associations with delivery method preference. Older providers were more likely than younger providers to prefer e-mail or fax, while younger providers were more likely than older providers to prefer receiving messages via SMS.

Conclusions: There is currently no evidence-based research to guide or improve communication between public health agencies and HCPs. Understanding the preferences of providers for receiving alerts and advisories may improve the effectiveness of vital public health communications systems and, in turn, may enhance disease surveillance, aid in early detection, and improve case finding and situational awareness for public health emergencies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Follow-up interview question flow in a sub-studya of health-care provider communication channel preferences for public health alerts and advisories in three locations in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, 2011–2012b
Figure 2
Figure 2
Message channel preference for public health alerts and advisories in a sub-studya of health-care provider communication channel preferences for public health alerts and advisories conducted in three locationsb in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, 2011–2012
Figure 3
Figure 3
Relationship between HCP preference for only one communication channel to receive all public health alerts and receiving all public health advisories by fax, e-mail, or SMSa in a sub-studyb of HCP communication channel preferences for public health alerts and advisories conducted in three locationsc in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, 2011–2012
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Gerberding JL, Hughes JM, Koplan JP. Bioterrorism preparedness and response: clinicians and public health agencies as essential partners. JAMA. 2002;287:898–900. - PubMed
    1. Asnis DS, Conetta R, Waldman G, Teixeira AA. The West Nile virus encephalitis outbreak in the United States (1999–2000): from Flushing, New York, to beyond its borders. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001;951:161–71. - PubMed
    1. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and coronavirus testing—United States, 2003 [published erratum appears in MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003;52(15):345] MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52(14):297–302. - PubMed
    1. Outbreak of swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection—Mexico, March–April 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58:467–70. - PubMed
    1. Surveillance for foodborne disease outbreaks—United States, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58(22):609–15. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources