俄罗斯大城市的远程医疗:问题与前景

Q3 Social Sciences Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal Pub Date : 2023-09-24 DOI:10.19181/socjour.2023.29.3.2
Elena Bogomiagkova, Ekaterina Orekh, Maria Glukhova
{"title":"俄罗斯大城市的远程医疗:问题与前景","authors":"Elena Bogomiagkova, Ekaterina Orekh, Maria Glukhova","doi":"10.19181/socjour.2023.29.3.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":35261,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Telemedicine in Russian Megacities: Problems and Prospects\",\"authors\":\"Elena Bogomiagkova, Ekaterina Orekh, Maria Glukhova\",\"doi\":\"10.19181/socjour.2023.29.3.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2023.29.3.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2023.29.3.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文介绍了2020 - 2021年进行的一项混合实证研究的结果,其中包括对俄罗斯大城市居民的半结构化访谈(N = 90)和对圣彼得堡居民的电话调查(N = 861)。我们关注的焦点是人们接受远程医疗咨询的经历、影响咨询的因素,以及人们对这类援助的态度。本文旨在确定以数字技术为媒介的新型医患沟通的可能性和局限性。根据研究结果,制定了关于远程医疗咨询普及程度的结论,以及远程医疗咨询如何融入公民的日常生活,以及如何实现与医疗专业人员互动的重要方面。据透露,一般来说,远程医疗咨询需要从远程医疗中分离出来,作为其变体之一。根据研究结果,25.2%的受访者至少与医生进行过一次远程沟通。这种互动通常发生在“值得信任的”医生身上——那些与他们个人的、经常反复的接触被证明是有效的,并且可以由医生和病人共同发起的医生。远程医疗的情况就不同了,人们对远程医疗的态度可以通过如何感知医患系统中相互作用的具体情况来解释。无法提供体检和难以建立个人联系是阻碍使用远程医疗的更重要原因。由于远程医疗涉及与不知名的医生接触,并且总是由患者发起,因此求助于远程医疗的基础不是对专家的人际信任,而是医疗保健系统中存在的机构信任和患者的高度自治。那些意识到自己有健康问题并习惯以各种不同方式照顾自己的人,包括通过监测医疗建议的方式,更有可能与医生进行远程沟通。较高的收入水平增加了诉诸这种协商的机会。可以预见的是,年龄较大的群体的代表被证明是局外人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Telemedicine in Russian Megacities: Problems and Prospects
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal
Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊介绍: “Sotsiologicheskij Zhurnal” publishes the articles on sociological disciplines. Interdisciplinary studies in sociology and related disciplines, such as social psychology, cultural studies, anthropology, ethnography, etc. — are also welcomed. The main emphasis is on the fundamental research in the field of theory, methodology and history of sociology. The regular rubric highlights the results of mass surveys and case studies. The rubric “Discussion”, which debated the controversial issues of sociological research, is regular as well. The journal publishes book reviews, and summaries, as well as lists of new books in Russian and English, which represent the main areas of interdisciplinary research in the social sciences. The journal aims to not only play samples of knowledge, considered regulatory and standards of internal expertise in the professional community, but also aims for opportunities to improve them. These rules, a tough selection and decision to print only a small portion of incoming materials allow “Sotsiologicheskij Zhurnal” contribute to improving the quality of sociological research. Submitted manuscripts should show a high integrity in problem setting, problem analysis and correspond to the journal’s thematic profile and its scientific priorities.
期刊最新文献
Theoretical Approaches Towards Studying Motivation for Surrogate Motherhood A Person that Feels, Values, and Studies Time. Professor Garold E. Zborovsky is 85 Years Old Is it Possible for a Society to Exist Without Development? Telemedicine in Russian Megacities: Problems and Prospects Batygin’s Lesson stuck with me on my Professional Path — Always Check Yourself to Make Sure your Conclusions Can Be Substantiated”. Interview Prepared by D.M. Rogozin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1