Doctors' Personal Preference and Adoption of Mobile Apps to Communicate with Patients in China: Qualitative Study.

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.