Patients’ Expectations of Doctors’ Clinical Competencies in the Digital Health Care Era: Qualitative Semistructured Interview Study Among Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital technologies have impacted health care delivery globally, and are increasingly being deployed in clinical practice. However, there is limited research on patients' expectations of doctors' clinical competencies when using digital health care technologies (DHTs) in medical care. Understanding these expectations can reveal competency gaps, enhance patient confidence, and contribute to digital innovation initiatives. OBJECTIVE: This study explores patients' perceptions of doctors' use of DHTs in clinical care. Using Singapore as a case study, it examines patients' expectations regarding doctors' communication, diagnosis, and treatment skills when using telemedicine, health apps, wearable devices, electronic health records, and artificial intelligence. METHODS: Findings were drawn from individual semistructured interviews with patients from outpatient clinics. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling. Data were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants from different backgrounds and with various chronic conditions participated in the study. They expected doctors to be adept in handling medical data from apps and wearable devices. For telemedicine, participants expected a level of assessment of their medical conditions akin to in-person consultations. In addition, they valued doctors recognizing when a physical examination was necessary. Interestingly, eye contact was appreciated but deemed nonessential by participants across all age bands when electronic health records were used, as they valued the doctor's efficiency more than eye contact. Nonetheless, participants emphasized the need for empathy throughout the clinical encounter regardless of DHT use. Furthermore, younger participants had a greater expectation for DHT use among doctors compared to older ones, who preferred DHTs as a complement rather than a replacement for clinical skills. The former expected doctors to be knowledgeable about the algorithms, principles, and purposes of DHTs such as artificial intelligence technologies to better assist them in diagnosis and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: By identifying patients' expectations of doctors amid increasing health care digitalization, this study highlights that while basic clinical skills remain crucial in the digital age, the role of clinicians needs to evolve with the introduction of DHTs. It has also provided insights into how DHTs can be integrated effectively into clinical settings, aligning with patients' expectations and preferences. Overall, the findings offer a framework for high-income countries to harness DHTs in enhancing health care delivery in the digital era.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".