Survey assesses digital communication readiness and demand for remote healthcare services, highlighting service preferences.
Objective: to assess the readiness of patients for online communication with a healthcare worker and the demand for medical care in a remote format. Materials and Methods. We interviewed 507 patients using the original questionnaire, which allowed obtaining data on the respondents’ experience in using online communication with a doctor, their readiness for digital health care instead of office visits, and the impact of Internet resources on the patient’s trust in the recommendations given by the attending physician. Results. We established that 30.6±2.1% of patients used online communication with their doctor, while 40.5±2.2% would like to have this opportunity. We observed a difference in readiness for digital communication between groups of respondents interested in pediatricians (parents of children attending city children’s polyclinics) and groups of central district hospital patients and multidisciplinary city hospital patients (p<0.001). The effect of age on the patient’s readiness for online communication has been confirmed. The most in demand in the remote format were referral services (for laboratory tests and hospitalization), especially in the group of parents of children attending city children’s polyclinics. The study of the patient’s behavior in relation to the search for a second opinion on the Internet showed that the majority of the respondents did not intend to double-check their doctor’s prescriptions, and the absolute majority of respondents (82.8±1.7%) trusted more their attending physician than Internet sources. Conclusion. The results of the study indicate the readiness of the population to implement digital communication and transfer part of medical care to the digital sphere. The most in-demand services were those for issuing referrals for hospitalization and to specialists, as well as for tests and pharmaceutical prescriptions that the patient receives on an ongoing basis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tatyana E. Romanova (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: