背景:不同类型的移动应用程序用于促进患者和医生之间的交流。研究调查了患者的移动应用程序采用行为;然而,他们对医生的个人偏好提供了有限的见解,这些偏好在各种移动应用程序的选择中。
目的:本研究旨在调查中国医生的细微差别收养行为,在医疗保健中大力采用移动应用程序,并探索影响他们选择特定移动应用程序的制约因素。本文解决了3个研究问题:(1)哪些医生选择采用移动应用程序与患者交流?(2)他们选择了哪些类型的移动应用程序?(3)他们在采用特定移动应用程序时在多大程度上行使个人选择?
方法:我们对杭州11名医生的半结构化访谈收集的定性数据进行了主题内容分析,因其在社会服务中先进采用移动技术而受到认可,包括医疗保健服务。参与者的选择是有目的的,包括不同的部门和医院。
结果:总计,从数据剖析中涌现了5个主题。首先,受访者有多种选择通过移动应用程序与患者沟通,主要的是社交网络应用(例如,微信)和医疗平台(例如,Haodf).第二,所有受访者都使用微信来促进与患者的沟通,尽管他们分享个人账户的意愿各不相同(他们更有可能与信任的中介机构分享)。第三,不到一半的医生采用了医疗平台,他们都来自三级医院。第四,面对面的偏好,微信,或医疗平台沟通反映了受访者对不同患者队列的看法。最后,特定类型的移动应用程序的选择受到医生与医院的隶属关系的显著影响,由他们的专业义务驱动,以完成医院分配的多项任务或与同事保持社会关系的必要性。
结论:我们的研究结果有助于细致入微地理解医生对特定类型的移动应用程序进行患者交流的采纳行为,而不是平等地解决各种移动应用程序的这种采用行为。他们对特定类型应用程序的选择是在医疗保健政策(例如,公立医院的资金有限,公共医疗机构的主导地位,以及缺乏强大的转诊系统)和传统文化(例如,基于社会关系的信任)在很大程度上塑造了他们的行为模式。
BACKGROUND: Different kinds of mobile apps are used to promote communications between patients and doctors. Studies have investigated patients\' mobile app adoption behavior; however, they offer limited insights into doctors\' personal preferences among a variety of choices of mobile apps.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the nuanced adoption behaviors among doctors in China, which has a robust adoption of mobile apps in health care, and to explore the constraints influencing their selection of specific mobile apps. This paper addressed 3 research questions: (1) Which doctors opt to adopt mobile apps to communicate with patients? (2) What types of mobile apps do they choose? (3) To what degree do they exercise personal choice in adopting specific mobile apps?
METHODS: We used thematic content analysis of qualitative data gathered from semistructured interviews with 11 doctors in Hangzhou, which has been recognized for its advanced adoption of mobile technology in social services, including health care services. The selection of participants was purposive, encompassing diverse departments and hospitals.
RESULTS: In total, 5 themes emerged from the data analysis. First, the interviewees had a variety of options for communicating with patients via mobile apps, with the predominant ones being social networking apps (eg, WeChat) and medical platforms (eg, Haodf). Second, all interviewees used WeChat to facilitate communication with patients, although their willingness to share personal accounts varied (they are more likely to share with trusty intermediaries). Third, fewer than half of the doctors adopted medical platforms, and they were all from tertiary hospitals. Fourth, the preferences for in-person, WeChat, or medical platform communication reflected the interviewees\' perceptions of different patient cohorts. Lastly, the selection of a particular kind of mobile app was significantly influenced by the doctors\' affiliation with hospitals, driven by their professional obligations to fulfill multiple tasks assigned by the hospitals or the necessity of maintaining social connections with their colleagues.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of doctors\' adoption behavior regarding specific types of mobile apps for patient communication, instead of addressing such adoption behavior of a wide range of mobile apps as equal. Their choices of a particular kind of app were positioned within a social context where health care policies (eg, limited funding for public hospitals, dominance of public health care institutions, and absence of robust referral systems) and traditional culture (eg, trust based on social connections) largely shape their behavioral patterns.