Theoretical Perspectives Underpinning Research on the Physician-Patient Relationship in a Digital Health Practice: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The advent of digital health technologies has transformed the landscape of health care, influencing the dynamics of the physician-patient relationship. Although these technologies offer potential benefits, they also introduce challenges and complexities that require ethical consideration. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to investigate the effects of digital health technologies, such as digital messaging, telemedicine, and electronic health records, on the physician-patient relationship. To understand the complex consequences of these tools within health care, it contrasts the findings of studies that use various theoretical frameworks and concepts with studies grounded in relational ethics. METHODS: Using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review. Data were retrieved through keyword searches on MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane. We screened 427 original peer-reviewed research papers published in English-language journals between 2010 and 2021. A total of 73 papers were assessed for eligibility, and 10 of these were included in the review. The data were summarized through a narrative synthesis of the findings. RESULTS: Digital health technologies enhance communication, improve health care delivery efficiency, and empower patients, leading to shifts in power dynamics in the physician-patient relationship. They also potentially reinforce inequities in health care access due to variations in technology literacy among patients and lead to decreases in patient satisfaction due to the impersonal nature of digital interactions. Studies applying a relational ethics framework have revealed the nuanced impacts of digital health technologies on the physician-patient relationship, highlighting shifts toward more collaborative and reciprocal care. These studies have also explored transitions from traditional hierarchical relationships to mutual engagement, capturing the complexities of power dynamics and vulnerabilities. Other theoretical frameworks, such as patient-centered care, and concepts, such as patient empowerment, were also valuable for understanding these interactions in the context of digital health. CONCLUSIONS: The shift from hierarchical to collaborative models in the physician-patient relationship not only underscores the empowering potential of digital tools but also presents new challenges and reinforces existing ones. Along with applications for various theoretical frameworks and concepts, this review highlights the unique comprehensiveness of a relational ethics perspective, which could provide a more nuanced understanding of trust, empathy, and power dynamics in the context of digital health. The adoption of relational ethics in empirical research may offer richer insights into the real-life complexities of the physician-patient relationship, as mediated by digital technologies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,089 | 0,192 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,041 | 0,035 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,019 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».