Original Paper
Abstract
Background: Patients’ web-based access to their medical records and secure messaging (SM) via patient portals is becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide. SM offers several potential benefits, including improved health outcomes and increased patient engagement. However, SM also raises concerns about effects on the therapeutic relationship and may be constrained by factors such as limited digital literacy and access to digital devices. Evidence on the use of SM in mental health is limited, and results are inconclusive.
Objective: This study aimed to examine (1) the purposes for which health care professionals (HCPs) and patients with psychiatric disorders use SM to communicate and (2) the specific use patterns associated with both patients and HCPs.
Methods: The secure messages (n=274) of 38 patients with psychiatric disorders and 4 HCPs (psychiatrists) from 3 psychiatric outpatient clinics in Brandenburg, Germany, was analyzed using thematic analysis. The data selected for this study represent a subsample from a larger study comprising a total of 116 patients. The subsample consists of the patients and HCPs who used SM.
Results: A total of 274 messages were analyzed: 22.3% (61/274) were initial notes from HCPs, 44.5% (122/274) were patient responses, and 33.2% (91/274) were HCP replies. Patients sent between 1 and 15 messages (mean 4.16, SD 3.42) and logged in 1 to 42 times (mean 10.78, SD 9.38). Most messages were sent during the day, although some were also sent at night and in the early morning. Regarding the purposes of SM, 4 core functions of SM were identified: reporting and feedback, interpersonal uses, intrapersonal uses, and organizational uses. Both patients and HCPs used SM to share treatment-relevant information and elicited feedback on treatment and medication. Furthermore, secure messages included expressions of gratitude by the patients, in addition to well-wishes and emotional support from the HCPs. SM allowed patients to reflect on their treatment and provide self-encouragement. Finally, secure messages were used to address organizational aspects such as scheduling, appointments, and administrative tasks.
Conclusions: SM in outpatient mental health care is multifaceted and holds the potential to enhance therapeutic contact and improve access to care by enabling quick, low-threshold communication between patients and HCPs, allowing treatment-related concerns to be addressed promptly and effectively. However, the asynchronous nature of SM also poses new challenges, particularly in managing acute mental health crises and in setting boundaries to prevent HCPs from being perceived as constantly available. Therefore, specific training for HCPs—both during medical education and in clinical practice—is essential, along with clear guidelines on handling crises and managing sensitive information.
doi:10.2196/63713
Keywords
Introduction
Background
With a growing number of countries worldwide allowing web-based medical record access to patients, the integration of secure messaging (SM) systems into patient portals is also increasing []. SM is recognized as a valuable tool with multiple benefits in health care. It is one of the most popular features of patient portals among both patients and health care professionals (HCPs) [] and has been rapidly adopted in recent years [,]. SM enables patients and HCPs to communicate effectively, provide treatment feedback, and address urgent questions without the need for them to be postponed until the next in-office visit []. Therefore, SM serves as a preventive measure against treatment delays caused by long wait times [], which can be particularly prominent in the field of mental health [].
Providing patients with access to a patient portal is already well established internationally, particularly in the United States and the northern European countries []. However, the introduction of an SM feature is a relatively recent development in the field. In Sweden, patients were previously able to comment on their electronic health records (EHRs) [], and while this feature was well accepted and frequently used by patients, it was discontinued in 2022 due to technical issues []. In Finland, patients can save data to their personal health record through certain (limited) well-being applications; however, HCPs currently do not have access to the data []. Similarly, in Germany, the need for an effective and secure digital communication tool in health care has been recognized, leading to the enactment of various laws in recent years, such as the “Act for Secure Digital Communication and Applications in Healthcare” (E-Health Act). This legislation paved the way for the mandatory implementation of an EHR for all patients by 2025 (so-called opt-out). In addition, the Hospital Future Act, which came into force in Germany in 2020, mandates the implementation of patient portals, including (asynchronous) communication between patients and HCPs [].
Studies indicate that SM via patient portals can facilitate access to care [], enhance patient-clinician communication, and enable efficient and location-independent information exchange between patients and HCPs [,]. This appears to be of particular importance in psychiatric systems, where therapeutic contacts are often brief and infrequent—typically 1 appointment every 3 months lasting 7.5 to 30 minutes for patients affected by mental health conditions. Furthermore, SM has been associated with improved health outcomes [], greater patient engagement (eg, better treatment adherence [], higher clinic attendance [], and improved disease management and disease awareness []), and increased patient satisfaction []. Reported effects of SM on the frequency of in-office visits remain inconclusive [-,]. SM is commonly used by patients for self-management of chronic diseases, accessing preventive services, and communicating with HCPs (eg, to inquire about symptoms or laboratory results, request prescription refills, or schedule appointments) [,]. Both patients and HCPs are generally in favor of using SM []. Patients particularly value the speed, ease, and directness of communicating through SM, perceiving it as an extension—and sometimes even replacement—of the in-office treatment [,]. Similarly, HCPs generally have a positive view of SM, appreciating its usefulness for tasks such as prescription refills and patient monitoring [,].
Despite its many advantages, both patients and HCPs have some concerns. Patients worry about the loss of interpersonal contact [], the appropriate manner of engagement [], and the possibility of taking up too much of their clinicians’ (uncompensated) time [,]. Additional patient use barriers include time constraints, limited usability and patient portal accessibility, and lack of digital literacy []. The privacy, security, and governance of sensitive health data have been a major concern for both parties []. HCPs encounter new demands in the practical implementation, such as potential institutional and workflow barriers (uncompensated hours and poor design), which could result in an additional workload [,] and the pressure to respond immediately [,]. HCPs express concerns that patients may misinterpret the proper use of the messaging feature [] and already face difficulties in managing certain “high-demand” patient messages due to their length, frequency, urgency, complexity, or lack of clarity [,].
Objectives
There is only limited evidence on patient portals in mental health [-]. Studies on SM through patient portals in mental health are even fewer and vary depending on the outcome measures. While there is some indication of increased engagement through SM [], the effects on medication adherence remain limited []. Nevertheless, both patients and HCPs in the mental health care field seem to welcome the introduction of SM [,]. Evidently, the implementation of SM via patient portals in mental health needs further exploration [,]. Therefore, this study aims to thoroughly explore the use of the SM function in patient portals by patients affected by a mental health condition. The following research questions will be addressed: (1) for what purposes do HCPs and patients affected by a severe mental health condition use SM to communicate in the outpatient treatment setting? and (2) what characterizes the use patterns of HCPs and patients?
Methods
Design
This study is part of the PEPPPSY (Piloting and Evaluation of Participatory Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Record in Psychiatry and Somatics) project (since 2021), which centers on piloting and evaluating a participatory patient record in psychiatry and somatic medicine [,]. The main objective is to investigate the development, implementation, processes, and outcomes of the corresponding patient portal, referred to as PEPPPSY, from the perspectives of patients and HCPs. Following the exploratory nature of this study, a qualitative method was chosen to comprehensively analyze the use of SM through patient portals.
PEPPPSY App
The pilot patient portal PEPPPSY was created through a research collaboration between the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and the Brandenburg Medical School. PEPPPSY is a stand-alone web-based technology designed to facilitate access to specific elements of a (digital) medical health record for research purposes. PEPPPSY is a patient portal that accesses data from the EHR and extends it with additional functions, as illustrated in 
Figure 1.
PEPPPSY is the result of an (ongoing) iterative process of participatory design, development, application, and evaluation []. PEPPPSY’s primary function is to provide patients with secure access to view their clinicians’ clinical notes. The practice of sharing clinical notes with patients is usually described with the term Open Notes. The pilot does not yet have a messaging function separate from the clinical notes. Nevertheless, patients have the possibility to respond to each clinical note and initiate SM with their HCPs. It is not uncommon for patients to use this SM option, independently of the initial clinical notes, both in terms of time and content, to contact their HCPs. In the patient portal settings, patients and HCPs could configure email notifications for new messages in the patient portal. HCPs had no specific requirements regarding how quickly they needed to respond or the time of day responses should be sent. 
Table 1 illustrates a fictional example of a messaging interaction via PEPPPSY that closely resembles actual practice. In the results, each quote is linked to a specific HCP (HCPXX) or patient (PTXX) using an abbreviation followed by a number. In the current second phase of the pilot, PEPPPSY is being expanded to serve a broader patient population, offering additional features such as the SM function or a proxy access for care partners.
| Sequence of the interaction | Excerpt from fictional secure message |
| Initial clinical note by an HCP | “The dosage of venlafaxine was decreased gradually from 150 mg to 75 mg due to the patient’s report of excessive perspiration.” [HCPXX] |
| Patient’s response | “Unfortunately, the medication hasn’t helped. I’ve been trying 75mg for two weeks now, but I’m still sweating. What can we do?” [PTXX] |
| HCP’s response | “Thank you for your message. Please come to my office. We should reduce or discontinue the current medication and then switch to a different one.” [HCPXX] |
Ethical Considerations
Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Brandenburg Medical School (E-01-20210727), and the study was registered with the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00030188). All data collected were deidentified. Within the SM, names, age, family relationships, location, gender, and times were randomly pseudonymized. The participating HCPs received a single compensation payment of €50 (US $57) for their participation in the study.
Study Setting
The study was conducted at 3 psychiatric outpatient university clinics of Immanuel Hospital Rüdersdorf, part of Brandenburg Medical School. Located in the Berlin/Brandenburg metropolitan region, these clinics provide mental health care services to approximately 255,000 residents in the catchment area. These outpatient clinics are dedicated to offer specialized mental health care for patients who need a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach, considering the nature, severity, or duration of their condition. There are approximately 500 psychiatric outpatient clinics (POCs) in Germany, treating approximately 2 million patients a year []. Treatment eligibility in respective clinics is based on specific diagnoses—including severe mental illness and other approved conditions—as determined by insurance providers and the hospital association []. The implemented multidisciplinary team approach includes psychiatrists, psychotherapists, nurses, and social workers.
Recruitment and Sampling
The inclusion period spanned from October 2022 to February 2024. For this branch of the study, all patients who used the SM function between December 2022 and June 2023 were included. Consequently, this study exclusively comprises HCPs whose patients had sent at least 1 secure message to them.
For the PEPPPSY study, patients were recruited using a purposive sampling strategy, targeting individuals who met the following inclusion criteria: a minimum age of 18 years; a diagnosis of severe mental illness based on the German version of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) criteria; ongoing outpatient treatment in one of the study centers within the last 6 months; and sufficient capacity to provide informed consent for the study. Qualified HCPs (eg, treating psychiatrists or psychotherapists) assessed suitability for participation. Patients with suicidal tendencies, patients who posed a danger to others, as well as patients affected by psychosis or severe cognitive impairment regardless of their diagnosis were excluded from participation in the study. Eligible patients were approached face-to-face by their HCPs and, if interested, were provided with information about the study’s objectives and procedures. Those who agreed to participate provided written informed consent. Patients were then introduced to the patient portal by their HCP or a study team member and granted access. They also received a written user manual, which included detailed step-by-step instructions and screenshots. Study team members were available to assist both patients and HCPs with any technical or other questions. Typically, patients accessed the patient portal via their personal digital devices (eg, smartphones or laptops). If patients lacked such devices, they could use a study tablet at the study center to access the portal. However, all participating patients were required to have a device capable of receiving SMS text messages, as this was essential for secure 2-factor authentication to log into the patient portal.
HCPs at the study centers were contacted by the study team and informed about the PEPPPSY study’s objective, procedures, and compensation (€50 per HCP). Participating HCPs provided informed consent and were introduced to the patient portal by a member of the study team. HCPs typically accessed the patient portal using their professional computers and professional mobile devices. To be eligible, they had to be older than 18 years, capable of providing informed consent, and employed at one of the study centers.
Data Collection
All participants were informed about the study both verbally and in writing and provided written informed consent. Sociodemographic data were collected. All patients and HCPs were able to contact the study team (patients could also reach out directly to their HCPs for support) at any time if they had technical problems with the patient portal.
All SM between HCPs and patients from December 2022 to July 2023 was retrieved from the PEPPPSY patient portal and stored in a tabular format. For improved clarity and readability, the term messages will consistently be used throughout the paper.
Data Analysis
Thematic analysis of the SM was conducted using the MAXQDA software (VERBI GmbH) []. A category system was devised to examine the use patterns of SM exchanged between patients and HCPs. Initially, one-third of the retrieved messages were analyzed deductively, and then, the analysis was extended to include inductive categories emerging from the data []. Two researchers performed the initial analysis and ensured consensus. When consensus could not be reached, a third researcher joined the analysis. In addition, participants’ sociodemographic data were analyzed based on their messaging behavior. The COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist was used for quality assurance ().
Results
Patient Characteristics
A total of 123 patients were included in the overarching PEPPPSY study, where initially 7 patients dropped out due to predefined exclusion criteria and personal reasons. All patients who used the SM function between December 2022 and June 2023 were included in this branch of the study. Thus, a total of 38 patients and 4 HCPs were included in the analysis. For 1 patient, sociodemographic data cannot be reported due to missing values.
Patients ranged in age from 18 to ≥60 years, with a mean age of 46.36 (SD 14.61; median 44.5, IQR 34.5-64.5) years. The overall study population (N=116 patients) had a similar age distribution to our sample, with a mean age of 45.39 (SD 15.76) years. As statistics show, the age distribution of the patients participating in this study also largely matches the age distribution of the general patient population in POCs in Germany (30% of patients are aged between 19 and 45 years and 40% of patients are aged between 45 and 69 years) []. Of the 38 patients in this sample, 25 (66%) were female and 13 (34%) were male. In the overall PEPPPSY study population, the gender distribution was comparable (male: 45/116, 38.8% and female: 67/116, 57.8%). Of the 116 participants, 2 (1.7%) did not disclose their gender identity. All patients in our sample were White and spoke German as their first language. Of the 38 patients, 4 (11%) had a family background of migration. The overall study population was slightly more diverse, with 3.5% (4/116) non-White patients. Similar to our sample, 10.3% (12/116) of the patients in the total population had a personal or family migrant background. In addition, 4.3% (5/116) of the patients did not speak German as their first language. Regarding employment status, 32% (12/38) of the patients in the study sample were employed, while 50% (19/38) were retired. Of the 38 patients, 1 (3%) was unemployed and 5 (13%) were unable to work. One patient (1/38, 3%) did not disclose the employment status. The employment distribution in the total study population was similar, with 32.8% (38/116) employed. However, there was a slightly higher proportion of unemployed patients (10/116, 8.6%) and patients who were unable to work (21/116, 18%), while the proportion of retired patients was significantly lower (44/116, 38%).
Table 2 shows the distribution of ICD-10 diagnoses for both the entire PEPPPSY study population and our sample. In the ICD-10 classification system, the numerals F1 to F9 are assigned to represent distinct diagnostic categories. Each code is designated to specify a particular group of mental and behavioral disorders.
| ICD-10 codes | Study population (PEPPPSY study), n (%) | Study population with SMa use, n (%) |
| F1b: Mental and behavioral disorders due to psychoactive substance use | 2 (1.72) | 0 (0) |
| F2: Schizophrenia, schizotypal, delusional, and other nonmood psychotic disorders | 12 (10.34) | 5 (13.51) |
| F3: Mood (affective) disorders | 60 (51.72) | 17 (45.59) |
| F4: Anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, somatoform, and other nonpsychotic mental disorders | 20 (17.24) | 7 (18.92) |
| F5: Behavioral syndromes associated with physiological disturbances and physical factors | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| F6: Disorders of adult personality and behavior | 16 (13.79) | 5 (13.51) |
| F7: Intellectual disabilities | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| F8: Pervasive and specific developmental disorders | 1 (0.86) | 0 (0) |
| F9: Behavioral and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence | 2 (1.72) | 1 (2.7) |
| Missing diagnosis | 3 (2.59) | 2 (5.41) |
aSM: secure messaging.
bF1-F9 refer to diagnostic categories according to the ICD-10 classification system, where each code represents a specific group of mental and behavioral disorders.
The diagnoses in our sample largely reflect those in the total study population, although the latter exhibits slightly greater diagnostic diversity. As statistics show, the diagnosis distribution of the patients participating in this study largely corresponds to the diagnosis distribution of the general patient population in POCs in Germany. Most patients in POCs are treated for psychotic disorders (ICD-10 F2) and affective disorders (ICD-10 F3). However, compared to the general population of German patients in POCs, substance-related disorders are significantly underrepresented in our sample [].
HCP Characteristics
All HCPs were male medical physicians trained in psychiatry and behavioral psychotherapy and provided both medical and psychotherapeutic treatment. Of 4 HCPs, 2 (50%) were senior physicians, and 2 (50%) were specialist physicians in psychiatry. Furthermore, 3 HCPs worked part time (50% positions), while 1 HCP held a full-time (100%) position in the POC. HCPs ranged in age from 38 to 56 (mean 45.25, SD 8.14) years. Their clinical experience ranged from 6 to 23 (mean 11.5, SD 7.85) years. Of the 4 HCPs, 2 (50%) stated that they had never shared their clinical notes with patients before the study. The other 2 HCPs, however, reported that they had already occasionally provided patients with (parts of) the clinical documentation, for example, by documenting together or providing printouts. Moreover, 71% of the specialists in psychiatry and psychotherapy working in Germany are aged > 50 years. This means that the HCP study population is somewhat younger than the average []. In addition, it is likely that male psychiatrists are significantly overrepresented in our sample compared to the overall population. In 2023, an equal number of new specialist titles in psychiatry and psychotherapy were awarded to women and men [].
Message Characteristics
A total of 274 messages were analyzed: 61 (22.3%) initial clinical notes written by HCPs, 122 (44.5%) responses from patients, and 91 (33.2%) responses composed by HCPs in reaction to the patients’ messages. The number of messages sent by each patient ranged from 1 to 15, with an average of 4.16 and an SD of 3.42. The number of log-ins by patients to the web portal ranged from 1 to 42 (mean 10.78, SD 9.38). Most messages were sent by both patients and HCPs during the daytime. Nevertheless, there were also instances of messages being sent at night, at the earliest hours of the morning, and during the nighttime (
Figure 2).
Qualitative Results
All 274 messages were coded. Overall, the following four core functions and a number of subfunctions were identified: (1) reporting or feedback, (2) interpersonal, (3) intrapersonal, and (4) organizational. The presentation follows these core functions and is illustrated by example quotes from the messages of the study participants.
Organizational Function
All 3 types of messages (initial clinical notes, patients’ responses, and HCPs’ responses) were used to discuss organizational matters. These included matters pertaining to appointments and the issuing of formalities such as sick notes. Example quotes can be found in Table 3. Initial clinical notes contain only very few organizational matters. In their responses to initial clinical notes, patients contact HCPs with organizational requests, queries, and information regarding appointments (including via telephone), as well as the issuance of documents such as sick notes. Many patients are polite in their entries, while others express their concerns urgently or even demandingly. In their responses to patient entries, HCPs usually address the patients’ concerns in a friendly, supportive, and transparent manner. A significant proportion of organizational and scheduling requests are accommodated, but it is also clearly communicated when certain needs exceed the treatment scope or technical capabilities. HCPs frequently provided transparent information about their availability and absences, as well as alternative contact options (such as registering with the POC).
| Message type | Example quotes |
| Initial clinical notes |
|
| Patients’ responses |
|
| HCPs’ responses |
|
Reporting and Feedback Function
Overview
Furthermore, all 3 message types were used to convey treatment-relevant information or to elicit feedback. Table 4 presents sample example quotes of the reporting and feedback functions found in each message type.
| Message type and reporting on | Example quotes | |
| Initial clinical notes | ||
| Current situation |
| |
| Treatment |
| |
| Patients’ responses | ||
| Current situation |
| |
| Treatment |
| |
| Initial clinical notes |
| |
| Experiences with SMa |
| |
| HCPs’ responses | ||
| Patients’ entries |
| |
| Treatment and current situation |
| |
| Experiences with SM |
| |
aSM: secure messaging.
Initial Clinical Notes
In initial clinical notes of the HCPs, the reporting function predominated. HCPs described the current psychological, somatic, and social condition through the patient’s medical and sociobiographical history, previous treatments, current symptoms, social and occupational situation, and acute stressors in daily life. This diverse information enables a holistic understanding of the patient’s current concerns and sheds light on the reciprocal interactions between somatic health, mental health, and environmental factors. Furthermore, HCPs documented information on previous, current, and planned therapeutic and psychotherapeutic and medical treatments, usually considering the patient’s wishes. HCPs seem to take great care to report information in neutral, nonjudgmental language and usually do not address patients directly (refer to the Interpersonal Function section for exceptions). Although HCPs mention their own impressions of the patient’s status in the messages, they mostly focus on the patient’s own perception and refer to it in direct quotations or indirect speech (using phrases such as “Patient summarizes...” and “Patient reports...”).
Patients’ Responses
In their responses, patients very frequently provided specific feedback on the course of treatment, particularly regarding the tolerability of the medication. While some patients conveyed their experiences in an objective manner or expressed agreement with the practitioners’ approach, others voiced doubts, concerns, or hopes regarding their treatment. Specifically, when patients harbored doubts about their medical treatment or felt dissatisfied with side effects or the absence of improvement, they turned to the HCPs with direct questions. Subsequently, the patient would inquire about potential adjustments to their medication or seek clarification on its mechanism of action. Furthermore, patients supplement the information documented by HCPs in the initial clinical notes and provide feedback on changes to their current psychological and somatic condition, as well as on changes or stressors in their social or professional environment. In addition, some patients offer further insight into their personal biographical history, which seems pertinent to the development of their mental health condition and its (psychotherapeutic) treatment. For some patients, reporting appears to have a relieving effect, allowing them to express their distress instead of carrying it alone. Others use the entries as a sort of diary for self-motivation and empowerment. This possibility to relieve oneself appears to be of particular significance for patients with severe mental health conditions and is perceived as beneficial for their mental health. In addition to stressors and deteriorations, small improvements and joyful moments are also shared with the HCPs. A novel aspect is that patients provide explicit feedback on the initial treatment documentation by their HCPs as well as on the SM web application. Regarding SM, issues pertaining to usability and accessibility (eg, technical difficulties, errors, and features) are typically addressed, particularly when patients have cognitive impairments. However, patients also refer to the initial documentation in terms of content; they pose questions, express rejections and suggestions for corrections, and also offer praise and agreement. Furthermore, patients reassure themselves with their HCPs that they are allowed to use the web application for writing entries.
HCPs’ Responses
In addition, HCPs reference the entries of the patients in their responses; they express gratitude for composing the comments, ascribe significance to them, and encourage further use of the function. Furthermore, they rectify any potential errors in their initial clinical notes and pose content-related questions regarding the entries of the patients and their current situation. The responses to patients’ questions on further treatment are of a high standard. Patients receive timely appointment offers, psychoeducational explanations, treatment recommendations, information on dealing with emergencies, and collaborations with other HCPs. In the event of technical difficulties with the patient portal, HCPs reassure patients and clarify that the problems are not the patients’ fault but rather technical errors in the system. Overall, it is noticeable that the HCPs patiently and empathetically address every concern of the patients.
Interpersonal Function
Overview
In most entries from both HCPs and patients, explicit relationship messages can be identified (Table 5). In addition, the entries also contain a multitude of implicit relationship messages. For example, the predominantly empathetic and compassionate composition of the entries already indicates a certain fundamental interpersonal character in almost all entries. At the same time, they are kept very professional and appropriately focused. Furthermore, the salutation and farewell messages (which range from formal to friendly and from distant to familiar) contain relevant relational aspects. Interpersonal aspects can thus be found in almost all other categories in one way or another. However, because interpersonal aspects are both distinct and highly important, they are discussed separately in this section.
| Message type | Example quotes |
| Initial clinical notes |
|
| Patients’ responses |
|
| HCPs’ responses |
|
Initial Clinical Notes
Given that HCPs primarily focus on reporting in the initial clinical notes, the interpersonal function is only subtly present. Nevertheless, a few HCPs include direct questions to patients (regarding the course and tolerability of medications) or “homework” in the initial clinical notes, thus initiating an active exchange.
Patients’ Responses
In their responses, patients convey relationship messages in multifaceted ways. A common theme in patients’ responses is gratitude for the messages, responses, and support provided by HCPs. Furthermore, many HCPs also receive positive sentiments, such as well-wishes from patients. Both gratitude and good wishes can contribute to the strengthening of the therapeutic relationship. Similarly, patients use the entries to seek reassurance, unload burdens, or address sensitive topics that they may be reluctant to discuss in person. In general, patients write their entries in a friendly and appropriate manner, which is almost professional and unobtrusive. However, in other responses, their distress becomes more apparent and is (more or less) implicitly directed as an appeal to the HCPs.
HCPs’ Responses
The responses of HCPs very frequently include messages and offers related to the establishment and maintenance of the therapeutic relationships. HCPs strengthen, encourage, and reassure patients through their compassionate and empathetic messages. As frequently described, HCPs always address the wishes and questions of patients in a patient and considerate manner. Similar to the patients, HCPs promote a good therapeutic relationship by expressing gratitude and good wishes to the patients and repeatedly encourage further exchange by posing specific questions. Furthermore, HCPs endeavor to foster transparency regarding their treatment and documentation practices and are not afraid to use self-disclosures. They respond authentically to patients, expressing their joy over (small) progress and demonstrating genuine understanding and compassion in the face of setbacks.
Intrapersonal Function
In the initial clinical notes, and particularly in the responses of the patients, an intrapersonal function of the SMS text messages could be identified. Both HCPs and patients used their messages as a direct or more indirect “note to themselves.” Table 6 provides example quotes. HCPs occasionally record information in the initial clinical notes that serve as reminders for their next appointment, specifying what they should pay attention to. This information is typically brief and documented only with keywords. These messages often contain questions and naturally also have an interpersonal character, as previously discussed. Patients use their entries to reflect on their treatment, recap their insights, and provide themselves with words of encouragement.
| Message type | Example quotes |
| Initial clinical notes |
|
| Patient’s response |
|
Discussion
Principal Findings
In the clinical text messages of patients affected by mental health conditions and HCPs at outpatient clinics in a rural area of Brandenburg, 4 main functions have been identified: organization, reporting and feedback, interpersonal uses, and intrapersonal uses. Despite the pervasive early fears about using SM with patients with psychiatric disorders, the interactions between HCPs and patients via SM were overwhelmingly positive in this study. This discrepancy between the anticipated and actual outcomes of SM is similarly reflected in other current studies []. The predominantly patient-centered, respectful, and friendly composition of the entries aligns with other empirical evidence [,].
Communication via SM poses challenges not only for patients but also for HCPs. The possible multitude of messages that must be managed alongside the already tightly organized treatment routine can be overwhelming [,]. Given that patients’ responses via patient portals could be read and answered at any time, including weekends or after work hours, patients may be under the impression that HCPs are available at all times via SM and will respond promptly to any queries [,]. Thus, HCPs must be particularly mindful of their own boundaries []. In our experience, attempts to facilitate boundary setting by shutting down the patient portal on weekends caused more confusion than relief among both HCPs and patients. In our study as well as those by others, HCPs endeavor to respond to queries in a timely manner, yet their work demands often preclude them from doing so. Consequently, responses may be delayed or occur outside of their scheduled clinic hours [,]. Furthermore, delays may occur due to technical issues, such as messages not being displayed immediately [,,]. On the basis of the use patterns of patients in this study, it can be assumed that patients primarily contact their HCPs during main working hours. Nevertheless, web portals should provide clear indications that HCPs will not read and respond to entries immediately, emphasizing that it is an asynchronous communication process. This is particularly pertinent in the context of acute crises, such as suicidal intentions [,]. In the event of a crisis, it is imperative that the web portal provides clear and readily accessible information on emergency numbers. No such emergency occurred in this study. However, in emerging crises, HCPs provided relevant emergency contact information to patients via SM. As the web application develops, it may be possible to implement an automated search function that identifies messages containing specific keywords (such as suicidal, suicide, and self-harm) using artificial intelligence technology []. This then could trigger emergency responses or display the appropriate emergency contact numbers.
As the results of this study show, both HCPs and patients use SM for organizational matters (organizational function). Communication via the patient portal can offer a simple and fast alternative to telephone or in-person coordination in the POC, which is often associated with long waiting times. However, HCPs must then reliably and consistently review and respond to incoming messages, which could lead to an additional workload. Besides the patients, only medical personnel had access to our web application. However, nonmedical practice assistants could also receive access to the patient portal to assist and support with organizational matters, thereby relieving the workload of HCPs. As is shown in our study as well as in those by others, this seems to be particularly useful for dealing with organizational issues, such as scheduling appointments via patient portals, which was frequently observed in the SM interactions [].
SM offers patients the opportunity to provide feedback and ask questions related to their HCPs’ clinical notes (reporting and feedback function). This allows patients to better understand their condition and treatment while also identifying potential errors and clarifying misunderstandings. Such processes were frequently observed in the message exchanges analyzed in this study. In line with previous research, it can be assumed that SM enhances treatment transparency and strengthen patient engagement in their own care.
Alongside the challenges it presents, communication via SM offers several benefits. In alignment with other studies, our research findings indicate that enhancing the therapeutic communication represents one of the most significant potential benefits (interpersonal factor) [,]. Some patients may feel more comfortable discussing sensitive topics through this mediated format than in direct contact with HCPs, often because of feelings of shame. In outpatient psychiatric care with brief and infrequent therapeutic contacts, patients often encounter difficulties in developing sufficient trust to openly discuss shameful or stigmatizing topics with their HCPs []. The interpersonal function of communication via SM facilitates more frequent and closer contact with HCPs, thereby possibly strengthening the therapeutic contact []. Moreover, HCPs sometimes seem to act as auxiliary egos for patients, offering support in important functions of the self, such as holding, containing, marking emotions, and self-reflecting []. However, it also becomes evident that in nearly every entry—often in just 1 sentence—many of these functions simultaneously come into play, interact, and overlap. On a communicative level, a sentence can possess diverse functions. Thus, it can be presumed that already established models of multifaceted communication, such as those by von Thun [], also apply to communication mediated via SM []. Although this communication is conducted through digital and written channels, it is not merely a matter of exchanging factual and technical information. Instead, it is an intricate process of communication between HCPs and patients, with similarities to nondigital forms of communication. Conversely, the absence of nonverbal cues and the lack of immediacy inherent to digital communication via SM present HCPs with a set of novel challenges []. These insights must be considered when composing clinical notes and responses. It requires appropriate training and guidelines so that HCPs can have a certain level of expertise and confidence in this area [,,].
Furthermore, SM offers patients the opportunity to engage with the content of their therapeutic sessions even after their appointments have ended (intrapersonal function). Some HCPs assign dedicated “homework” to patients, while other patients describe how reading the initial clinical notes and subsequent SM has helped them continue reflecting on the session’s content beyond the face-to-face therapy. This suggests that therapeutic interactions may extend into the digital space through SM.
Regarding the technical realization of SM in Germany, it can be stated that the German digital health agency “gematik” has briefly certified 7 different SM apps—so-called telematic infrastructure messengers, which all communicate using the matrix protocol via the German health data infrastructure []. The telematic infrastructure messenger currently supports communication only between HCPs, with patient-to-HCP communication planned for a future update. The patient portals enabled by the Hospital Future Act, which in turn should allow asynchronous, secure communication between patients treated by a hospital and their HCPs, are still used in only a few cases and have not yet met expectations. In this respect, the intervention of a patient portal with open notes and text-based asynchronous patient-HCP communication, as tested here, will only be possible under study conditions in the near future, at least in Germany [].
Limitations
The explorative nature of the study and its qualitative approach, while providing in-depth insights, may not be generalizable to the broader population. Furthermore, the sample was drawn from 3 POCs in a rural region, which may not represent the diversity of patients in different (eg, more metropolitan) geographical locations or other health care settings, such as the somatic field. In addition, no validated instruments were used to assess the digital and technical literacy of patients and HCPs. As a result, the study could not account for varying levels of technology and digital literacy among patients, which could have led to the exclusion of patients with lower technology or digital literacy. In contrast, our experience showed that even patients with limited digital skills were willing to participate in the study, though they required increased support and guidance from the study team. To foster the engagement of patient SM in routine care, trained nonmedical professionals (so-called “digital navigators”) who assist patients and HCPs in using the technology, thereby alleviating the burden on the treatment team, could be a promising option []. The health literacy and overall communication skills of the patients were also not specifically assessed, which may represent a limiting factor.
Furthermore, a potential gatekeeper effect should be considered, given that HCPs were responsible for patient recruitment in the PEPPPSY study [,]. However, all HCPs received comprehensive training on the eligibility criteria in advance and included a diverse range of patients with various psychiatric disorders and varying levels of digital literacy. Moreover, a potential self-selection bias should be considered. Patients who opt to use SM might be more engaged or proactive about their health care, whereas those who do not use the messaging feature might have different, unstudied needs or barriers. As nonusers of SM were not included, conclusions drawn from this study may primarily reflect the experiences of more engaged or technologically adept patients. In addition, by excluding patients with acute risk factors and significant cognitive impairments, the study might overlook the perspectives of those who are most vulnerable and might have unique challenges or needs related to the use of patient portals. Further research should prioritize the implementation of SM within these patient populations. In this study, SM was analyzed exclusively in the context of open medical record access. Future research could explore the use of SM in broader or alternative contexts.
Conclusions
The study demonstrated the multifaceted nature of communication through SM in psychiatric outpatient care of patients affected by severe mental health conditions, with messages serving multiple purposes simultaneously. The complex communication via SM resembles traditional forms of communication while presenting unique challenges and opportunities. In addition to the necessity for training and guidelines for HCPs and personal assistance for patients to navigate digital communication effectively, structural adjustments in workflow are essential to manage the increased communication load and maintain professional boundaries.
Despite these challenges, SM offers notable benefits, including enhanced therapeutic contact and increased accessibility to care. However, further research is needed to ensure the meaningful use and responsible implementation of SM in health care, with particular attention to ethical, legal, and practical considerations.
Acknowledgments
Funded by the Brandenburg Medical School publication fund supported by the Ministry of Science, Research and Cultural Affairs of the State of Brandenburg.
Data Availability
The datasets generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Authors' Contributions
All authors contributed to planning, analysis, and the critical interpretation of findings. J Schwarz and EM-D contributed to the study design, and J Schwarz supervised the study. J Speck and JMW contributed to data collection. EM-D conducted the data analysis. EM-D wrote the first draft of the manuscript and prepared all tables and figures. EM-D, J Schwarz, and CT modified successive drafts. J Schwarz edited and approved the final version.
Conflicts of Interest
None declared.
Multimedia Appendix 1
COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist.
PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 75 KBReferences
- Lawal A, Menon D, Affleck E, Stafinski T. The impact of secure messaging in the treatment of patients with diabetes within a primary care setting: protocol for a scoping review. JMIR Res Protoc. May 02, 2023;12:e42339. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Antonio MG, Petrovskaya O, Lau F. Correction: the state of evidence in patient portals: umbrella review. J Med Internet Res. Aug 16, 2021;23(8):e32421. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Cronin RM, Davis SE, Shenson JA, Chen Q, Rosenbloom ST, Jackson GP. Growth of secure messaging through a patient portal as a form of outpatient interaction across clinical specialties. Appl Clin Inform. 2015;6(2):288-304. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Shenson JA, Cronin RM, Davis SE, Chen Q, Jackson GP. Rapid growth in surgeons' use of secure messaging in a patient portal. Surg Endosc. Apr 2016;30(4):1432-1440. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hefner JL, MacEwan SR, Biltz A, Sieck CJ. Patient portal messaging for care coordination: a qualitative study of perspectives of experienced users with chronic conditions. BMC Fam Pract. May 03, 2019;20(1):57. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Naiker U, FitzGerald G, Dulhunty JM, Rosemann M. Time to wait: a systematic review of strategies that affect out-patient waiting times. Aust Health Rev. Jun 2018;42(3):286-293. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Rastpour A, McGregor C. Predicting patient wait times by using highly deidentified data in mental health care: enhanced machine learning approach. JMIR Ment Health. Aug 09, 2022;9(8):e38428. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Blease C, McMillan B, Salmi L, Davidge G, Delbanco T. Adapting to transparent medical records: international experience with "open notes". BMJ. Nov 21, 2022;379:e069861. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hägglund M. Electronic health records in Sweden—how can we go from transparency to collaboration? The BMJ Opinion. 2017. URL: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/06/23/maria-hagglund-electronic-health-records-in-sweden-how-can-we-go-transparency-to-collaboration/ [accessed 2023-07-14]
- Hägglund M, Kharko A, Hagström J, Bärkås A, Blease C, Cajander Å, et al. The NORDeHEALTH 2022 patient survey: cross-sectional study of national patient portal users in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. J Med Internet Res. Nov 13, 2023;25:e47573. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Jormanainen V. Large-scale implementation and adoption of the Finnish national Kanta services in 2010–2017: a prospective, longitudinal, indicator-based study. FinJeHeW. Dec 04, 2018;10(4):15. [CrossRef]
- Wurster F, Di Gion P, Goldberg N, Hautsch V, Hefter K, Herrmann C, et al. Roger's diffusion of innovations theory and the adoption of a patient portal's digital anamnesis collection tool: study protocol for the MAiBest project. Implement Sci Commun. Jul 15, 2024;5(1):74. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Wade-Vuturo AE, Mayberry LS, Osborn CY. Secure messaging and diabetes management: experiences and perspectives of patient portal users. J Am Med Inform Assoc. May 01, 2013;20(3):519-525. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sieck CJ, Hefner JL, Schnierle J, Florian H, Agarwal A, Rundell K, et al. The rules of engagement: perspectives on secure messaging from experienced ambulatory patient portal users. JMIR Med Inform. Jul 04, 2017;5(3):e13. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Han HR, Gleason KT, Sun C, Miller HN, Kang SJ, Chow S, et al. Using patient portals to improve patient outcomes: systematic review. JMIR Hum Factors. Dec 19, 2019;6(4):e15038. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Saberi P, Catz SL, Leyden WA, Stewart C, Ralston JD, Horberg MA, et al. Antiretroviral therapy adherence and use of an electronic shared medical record among people living with HIV. AIDS Behav. Jun 2015;19 Suppl 2(0 2):177-185. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- de Lusignan S, Mold F, Sheikh A, Majeed A, Wyatt JC, Quinn T, et al. Patients' online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic interpretative review. BMJ Open. Sep 08, 2014;4(9):e006021. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lyles CR, Sarkar U, Schillinger D, Ralston JD, Allen JY, Nguyen R, et al. Refilling medications through an online patient portal: consistent improvements in adherence across racial/ethnic groups. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Apr 2016;23(e1):e28-e33. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- North F, Crane SJ, Chaudhry R, Ebbert JO, Ytterberg K, Tulledge-Scheitel SM, et al. Impact of patient portal secure messages and electronic visits on adult primary care office visits. Telemed J E Health. Mar 2014;20(3):192-198. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Turvey CL, Fuhrmeister LA, Klein DM, Moeckli J, Howren MB, Chasco EE. Patient and provider experience of electronic patient portals and secure messaging in mental health treatment. Telemed J E Health. Feb 2022;28(2):189-198. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Tieu L, Sarkar U, Schillinger D, Ralston JD, Ratanawongsa N, Pasick R, et al. Barriers and facilitators to online portal use among patients and caregivers in a safety net health care system: a qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. Dec 03, 2015;17(12):e275. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kruse CS, Argueta DA, Lopez L, Nair A. Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Feb 20, 2015;17(2):e40. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Laukka E, Huhtakangas M, Heponiemi T, Kujala S, Kaihlanen A, Gluschkoff K, et al. Health care professionals' experiences of patient-professional communication over patient portals: systematic review of qualitative studies. J Med Internet Res. Dec 08, 2020;22(12):e21623. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Schwarz J, Esch T. OpenNotes in mental health? Pro. Nervenarzt. Nov 01, 2022;93(11):1163-1164. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Schwarz J, Meier-Diedrich E, Neumann K, Heinze M, Eisenmann Y, Thoma S. Reasons for acceptance or rejection of online record access among patients affected by a severe mental illness: mixed methods study. JMIR Ment Health. Feb 05, 2024;11:e51126. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Schwarz J, Neumann K, Meier-Diedrich E, Mühlensiepen F, Hochwarter S, Blease C. Psychotherapists' views on open notes: an online survey from Germany. Digit Health. Sep 11, 2024;10:20552076241271813. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Meier-Diedrich E, Neumann K, Heinze M, Schwarz J. Attitudes and expectations of psychological and medical psychotherapists towards open notes: analysis of qualitative survey responses. Psychiatr Prax. Oct 2024;51(7):376-384. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Schwarz J, Hoetger C, Pluschke LS, Muehlensiepen F, Schneider M, Thoma S, et al. Psychiatrists' perceptions of conditions and consequences associated with the implementation of open notes: qualitative investigation. BMC Psychiatry. Jun 10, 2024;24(1):430. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Stewart MT, Hogan TP, Nicklas J, Robinson SA, Purington CM, Miller CJ, et al. The promise of patient portals for individuals living with chronic illness: qualitative study identifying pathways of patient engagement. J Med Internet Res. Jul 17, 2020;22(7):e17744. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Turvey C, Fuhrmeister L, Klein D, McCoy K, Moeckli J, Stewart Steffensmeier KR, et al. Secure messaging intervention in patients starting new antidepressant to promote adherence: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Form Res. Dec 08, 2023;7:e51277. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Brearly TW, Goodman CS, Haynes C, McDermott K, Rowland JA. Improvement of postinpatient psychiatric follow-up for veterans using telehealth. Am J Health Syst Pharm. Feb 07, 2020;77(4):288-294. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hochwarter S, Fehler G, Muente C, Eisenmann Y, Heinze M, Hibsch C, et al. Design of a patient-accessible electronic health record system in mental health. Stud Health Technol Inform. May 25, 2022;294:583-584. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hochwarter S, Schwarz J. Facilitating collaboration by opening the common information space in mental health care. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Infrastructures in Healthcare. 2023. Presented at: Infrahealth '23; September 11-12, 2023:22; Siegen, Germany. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373580272_Facilitating_Collaboration_by_Opening_the_Common_Information_Space_in_Mental_Health_Care [CrossRef]
- Basisdaten zu psychischen Erkrankungen in Deutschland. DGPPN. URL: https://www.dgppn.de/_Resources/Persistent/3067cbcf50e837c89e2e9307cecea8cc901f6da8/DGPPN_Factsheet_Kennzahlen.pdf [accessed 2025-02-07]
- Klauber J. Krankenhaus-Report 2016: Schwerpunkt: Ambulant im Krankenhaus - Mit Online-Zugang. Berlin, Germany. Schattauer; 2016.
- Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. Jan 2006;3(2):77-101. [CrossRef]
- Clarke V, Braun V, Hayfield N, Terry G. Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Cham, Switzerland. Springer; 2015:843-860.
- Koch-Stoecker S, Driessen M, Gouzoulis-Mayfrank E, Pollmächer T. Structure and spectrum of activities of psychiatric outpatient clinics in Germany. Psychiatr Prax. Apr 2016;43(3):129-130. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ärztestatistik zum 31. Dezember 2023. Bundesärztekammer. URL: https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BAEK/Ueber_uns/Statistik/AErztestatistik_2023_Update_Juni_2024.pdf [accessed 2025-02-07]
- Hogan TP, Luger TM, Volkman JE, Rocheleau M, Mueller N, Barker AM, et al. Patient centeredness in electronic communication: evaluation of patient-to-health care team secure messaging. J Med Internet Res. Mar 08, 2018;20(3):e82. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Alpert JM, Wang S, Bylund CL, Markham MJ, Bjarnadottir RI, Lee J, et al. Improving secure messaging: a framework for support, partnership and information-giving communicating electronically (SPICE). Patient Educ Couns. Jun 2021;104(6):1380-1386. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kelly MM, Dean SM, Carayon P, Wetterneck TB, Hoonakker PL. Healthcare team perceptions of a portal for parents of hospitalized children before and after implementation. Appl Clin Inform. Mar 15, 2017;8(1):265-278. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Shimada SL, Petrakis BA, Rothendler JA, Zirkle M, Zhao S, Feng H, et al. An analysis of patient-provider secure messaging at two veterans health administration medical centers: message content and resolution through secure messaging. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Sep 01, 2017;24(5):942-949. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lieu TA, Altschuler A, Weiner JZ, East JA, Moeller MF, Prausnitz S, et al. Primary care physicians' experiences with and strategies for managing electronic messages. JAMA Netw Open. Dec 02, 2019;2(12):e1918287. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Rohrer JE, North F, Angstman KB, Oberhelman SS, Meunier MR. Timely response to secure messages from primary care patients. Qual Manag Health Care. 2013;22(2):161-166. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- North F, Luhman KE, Mallmann EA, Mallmann TJ, Tulledge-Scheitel SM, North EJ, et al. A retrospective analysis of provider-to-patient secure messages: how much are they increasing, who is doing the work, and is the work happening after hours? JMIR Med Inform. Jul 08, 2020;8(7):e16521. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hefner JL, Sieck CJ, Walker DM, Huerta TR, McAlearney AS. System-wide inpatient portal implementation: survey of health care team perceptions. JMIR Med Inform. Sep 14, 2017;5(3):e31. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hoonakker PL, Carayon P, Cartmill RS. The impact of secure messaging on workflow in primary care: results of a multiple-case, multiple-method study. Int J Med Inform. Apr 2017;100:63-76. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Duvall M, North F, Leasure W, Pecina J. Patient portal message characteristics and reported thoughts of self-harm and suicide: a retrospective cohort study. J Telemed Telecare. Sep 2021;27(8):501-508. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Masterman M, Cronin RM, Davis SE, Shenson JA, Jackson GP. Adoption of secure messaging in a patient portal across pediatric specialties. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2016;2016:1930-1939. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
- Haun JN, Lind JD, Shimada SL, Martin TL, Gosline RM, Antinori N, et al. Evaluating user experiences of the secure messaging tool on the Veterans Affairs' patient portal system. J Med Internet Res. Mar 06, 2014;16(3):e75. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kruse CS, Bolton K, Freriks G. The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Feb 10, 2015;17(2):e44. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Heigl-Evers A, Ott J. Die psychoanalytisch-interaktionelle Methode. Psychotherapeut. Mar 1, 1996;41(2):77-83. [CrossRef]
- von Thun FS. Miteinander reden 1: Störungen und Klärungen: Allgemeine Psychologie der Kommunikation. Berlin, Germany. Rowohlt Verlag; 2013.
- gematik GmbH. TI-Messenger. URL: https://www.gematik.de/anwendungen/ti-messenger [accessed 2024-05-05]
- Perret S, Alon N, Carpenter-Song E, Myrick K, Thompson K, Li S, et al. Standardising the role of a digital navigator in behavioural health: a systematic review. Lancet Digit Health. Dec 2023;5(12):e925-e932. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Reinders H. Qualitative Interviews mit Jugendlichen führen: Ein Leitfaden. München, Germany. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag; 2012.
- Merkens H. Stichproben bei qualitativen Studien. In: Friebertshäuser B, Prengel A, editors. Handbuch Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Berlin, Germany. Julius Beltz; 1997:97-106.
Abbreviations
| COREQ: Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research |
| EHR: electronic health record |
| HCP: health care professional |
| ICD-10: International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision |
| PEPPPSY: Piloting and Evaluation of Participatory Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Record in Psychiatry and Somatics |
| POC: psychiatric outpatient clinic |
| SM: secure messaging |
Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 27.06.24; peer-reviewed by M Rigby, F Wurster; comments to author 20.12.24; revised version received 09.01.25; accepted 12.03.25; published 27.06.25.
Copyright©Eva Meier-Diedrich, Carolyn Turvey, Jonas Maximilian Wördemann, Justin Speck, Mareike Weibezahl, Julian Schwarz. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 27.06.2025.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.