Telemedicine in Russian Megacities: Problems and Prospects

Research Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2023.29.3.2
EDN: CGWRRI
Acknowledgments
The article was prepared under support of the RFBR grant (project No. 20-013-00770A)
How to Cite
Bogomiagkova E.S., Orekh E.A., Glukhova M.E. Telemedicine in Russian Megacities: Problems and Prospects. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal = Sociological Journal. 2023. Vol. 29. No. 3. P. 29-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2023.29.3.2

Abstract

The article presents the results of a mixed empirical study carried out in 2020– 2021, which included semi-structured interviews with residents of large Russian cities (N = 90) and a telephone survey of residents of Saint Petersburg (N = 861). The focus of our attention is people’s experience of receiving remote medical consultations, the factors influencing it, as well as the attitudes that have developed towards this sort of assistance. The article aims at identifying possibilities and limitations of a new type of communication between doctor and patient, mediated by digital technologies. Based on the results of the research, conclusions about the prevalence of remote medical consultations, as well as how they are embedded in the everyday life of citizens and how they actualize important aspects of interaction with medical professionals were formulated. It was revealed that remote medical consultations in general need to be separated from telemedicine as one of its variants. According to the results of the study, 25.2% of respondents have communicated at least once with a doctor remotely. Typically such interaction occurs with “trusted” doctors — those with whom personal, and often repeated contact has proven to be effective, and can be initiated by both the doctor and the patient. The situation is different in the case of telemedicine, attitudes towards which can be explained by how the specifics of interaction in the doctor-patient system are perceived. The inability to provide a physical examination and difficulties in establishing personal contact are among the more significant reasons preventing the use of telemedicine. Since telemedicine involves contact with unknown doctors and is always initiated by the patient, the basis for resorting to it is not interpersonal trust in the specialist, but the presence of institutional trust in the healthcare system and a significant degree of patient autonomy. People who are aware that they have health problems and have a habit of taking care of themselves in various different ways, including by means of monitoring medical recommendations, are more likely to communicate remotely with a doctor. A higher level of income increases the chances of resorting to such consultations. Predictably, representatives of older age groups turned out to be in the outsider group.
Keywords:
telemedicine, remote medical consultations, d-Health, health care, trust in the doctor, institutional trust, telephone survey, semi-structured interviews, regression analysis

Author Biographies

Elena S. Bogomiagkova, Saint-Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Theory and History of Sociology
Ekaterina A. Orekh, Saint-Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Theory and History of Sociology
Maria E. Glukhova, European University at Saint Petersburg, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
PhD student, Department of Sociology

References

1. Bogomiagkova E.S., Orekh E.A. Glukhova M.E. Digital technologies in the healthcare practices of St.-Petersburg residents. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2022. No. 10. P. 145–155. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250018705-8 (In Russ.)

2. Vladzymyrskiy A.V. The first 150 years of a telemedicine history. Zhurnal telemeditsiny i elektronnogo zdravookhraneniya. 2015. No. 1. P. 10–16. (In Russ.)

3. Guryleva M.E., Nezhmetdinova F.T. Telemedicine: advantages and risks. Meditsinskaya etika. 2022. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 4–9. DOI: 10.24075/medet.2022.039 (In Russ.)

4. Zingerman B.V., Shklovsky-Kordi N.E., Vorobiev A.I. About telemedicine “patient to doctor”. Vrach i informatsionnye tekhnologii. 2017. No. 1. P. 61–79. (In Russ.)

5. Kalabikhina I.E, Matyushina D.A. A study of the population’s attitude to telemedicine technologies on the example of online medical consultations. Naselenie i ekonomika. 2018. No. 2 (2). P. 78–94. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.2.e36048 (In Russ.)

6. Lebedev G.S., Shaderkin I.A., Fomina I.V., Lisnenko A.A., Ryabkov I.V., Kachkovsky S.V., Melaev D.V. Evolution of internet technologies in healthcare. Zhurnal telemeditsiny i elektronnogo zdravookhraneniya. 2017. No. 2. P. 63–78. (In Russ.)

7. Rozhkova E.V. Telemedicine in the context of accessibility of medical aid in Russia. Naselenie i ekonomika. 2018. No. 2 (2). P. 110–128. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.2.e36049 (In Russ.)

8. Rusanova N. E. History and Issues if digital healthcare in Russia. Naselenie i ekonomika. 2018. No. 2 (2). P. 5–23. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.2.e36046 (In Russ.)

9. Heath C. Body Work: The Collaborative Production of the Clinical Object. Sotsiologiya vlasti. 2017. No. 29 (3). P. 258–285. (In Russ.)

10. Shaderkin I.A. Telemedicine barriers and ways to overcome them. Rossiiskii zhurnal telemeditsiny i elektronnogo zdravookhraneniya. 2022. No. 8 (2). P. 59–76. DOI: 10.29188/2712-9217-2022-8-2-59-76 (In Russ.)

11. Shaderkin I.A., Shaderkina V.A. Remote medical consultations for patients: what has changed in Russia in 20 years. Rossiiskii zhurnal telemeditsiny i elektronnogo zdravookhraneniya. 2021. No. 7 (2). P. 7–17. DOI: 10.29188/2712-9217-2021-7-2-7-17 (In Russ.)

12. Di Cerbo A., Morales-Medina J. C., Palmieri B., Iannitti T. Narrative review of telemedicine consultation in medical practice. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2015. Vol. 9. P. 65–75. DOI:10.2147/PPA.S61617

13. Greenhalgh T., Vijayaraghavan S., Wherton J., Shaw S., Byrne E., CampbellRichards D., Bhattacharya S., Hanson P., Ramoutar S., Gutteridge C., Hodkinson I., Collard A., Morris J. Virtual online consultations: advantages and limitations (VOCAL) study. British Medical Journal. 2016. Vol. 6 (1). P. e009388. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009388

14. Grīnfelde M. Face-to-Face with the Doctor Online: Phenomenological Analysis of Patient Experience of Teleconsultation. Human Studies. 2022. Vol. 45 (5). P. 673–696. DOI: 10.1007/s10746-022-09652-4

15. Grossman D., Grindlay K. Safety of medical abortion provided through telemedicine compared with in person. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017. Vol. 130 (4). P. 778–782. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002212

16. Honaker J., King G., Blackwell M. Amelia II: A program for missing data. Journal of statistical software. 2011. Vol. 45 (7). P. 1–47. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v045.i07

17. Jung C., Padman R. Virtualized healthcare delivery: Understanding users and their usage patterns of online medical consultations. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2014. Vol. 83 (12). P. 901–914. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.08.004

18. Little R.J.A. A Test of Missing Completely at Random for Multivariate Data with Missing Values. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1988. Vol. 83 (404). P. 1198–1202. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
Article

Received: 13.03.2023

Accepted: 23.09.2023

Citation Formats
Other cite formats:

ACM
[1]
Bogomiagkova, E.S., Orekh, E.A. and Glukhova, M.E. 2023. Telemedicine in Russian Megacities: Problems and Prospects. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal = Sociological Journal. 29, 3 (Sep. 2023), 29-48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2023.29.3.2.
Issue
Vol 29 No 3 (2023): SOTSIOLOGICHESKIY ZURNAL
Section
SOCIOLOGY OF MEDICINE

The right of authorship belongs to the authors of articles. The authors transfer the rights to use the article (including the use and distribution of an article in the Open Access) to the publisher of the journal on a non-exclusive license (Publishing Agreement (Public Offer))