JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

China, which has the world’s largest users of mobile phones, has a robust adoption of mobile apps in health care. Different kind of mobile apps are utilized to promote communications between patients and doctors. Studies have investigated patients’ mobile app adoption behavior; however, they have offered limited insights into doctors’ personal preference among a variety of choices of mobile apps.

Objective:

This study aims to research the nuanced adoption behaviors among doctors in China and to explore the constraints influencing their selection of specific mobile apps. This article addresses three research questions: (a) Which doctors opt to adopt mobile apps to communicate with patients? (b) What types of mobile apps do they choose? (c) To what degree do the doctors exercise personal choice in adopting specific mobile apps?

Methods:

This study employs thematic content analysis of qualitative data gathered from semi-structured interviews with 11 doctors in Hangzhou, which has been recognized for its advanced adoption of mobile technology in social services, including healthcare services. The selection of interviewees was purposive, encompassing diverse departments and hospitals.

Results:

Five themes emerged from the analysis of the data. Firstly, the interviewees were found to have a variety of options to communicate with patients via mobile apps, with the predominant ones being social networking apps (e.g., WeChat) and medical platforms (e.g., Haodf). Secondly, all interviewees utilized WeChat to facilitate communication with patients, though their willingness to share personal accounts varies. With trusty intermediaries, they are more likely to share. Thirdly, fewer than half of the doctors have adopted medical platforms, and most of them are from top-tier hospitals. Fourthly, the preferences out of in-person or WeChat or medical platform communication reflected the interviewees’ perceptions of different patient cohorts. Lastly, the selections of a particular kind of mobile app were significantly influenced by their affiliation with hospitals, driven by their professional obligations to fulfill multiple tasks assigned by 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 (e.g., limited funding for public hospitals, dominance of public healthcare institutions, and absence of robust referral systems) and traditional culture (e.g., trust based on social connections) largely shape healthcare professionals’ behavioral patterns.