Digital Technologies in the Healthcare Practices of St. Petersburg Residents

 
PIIS013216250018705-8-1
DOI10.31857/S013216250018705-8
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Associated Professor at the Department of Theory and History of Sociology
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: St.-Petersburg, Russia
Occupation: Associated Professor at the Department of Theory and History of Sociology
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: St.-Petersburg, Russia
Occupation: PhD student at the department of Sociology
Affiliation: European University at St. Petersburg
Address: St.-Petersburg, Russia
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 10
Pages145-155
Abstract

The article presents results of an empirical study of the digital technologies in the healthcare practices of St. Petersburg residents, – a telephone survey (N=861, August 2021). Although the healthcare digitalization is attracting attention of scholars today, there is a lack of data on how widespread are digital healthcare practices among the population, and whether they are combined with traditional options (for example, doing sports or visiting a doctor). Of particular importance is the identification of factors that determine adoption of new ways to maintain health. As a result of the study, we obtained data on the usage of digital healthcare practices among residents of St. Petersburg. While telemedicine is seen as a main frontier of healthcare digitalization in our country, it does not enjoy significant popularity among respondents. Four modes of healthcare were found, in two cases combining traditional and new practices: "digital care", "healthy lifestyle", "classic care" and "advanced care". We associate adoption of new practices with current social transformations that contribute to emergence of modern interpretations of what it means to be healthy today. Digital technologies are just tools facilitating implementation of new ideas in practice. Factors for engagement in digital healthcare include age, Internet use, and trust in digital sources of information. The identified age differences allow us to raise the question about emerging inequality in medical care access. The study showed high levels of trust in medical professionals and personal experience, combined with acceptance of other sources of medical information – digital data.

KeywordsD-Health, health care, telemedicine, digital self-tracking, medical blogging, telephone survey, exploratory factor analysis, correlation analysis
AcknowledgmentThis article was supported by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research, project No. 20-013-00770А.
Received13.12.2022
Publication date14.12.2022
Number of characters29479
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 500

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Bogomiagkova E.S., Dupak A.A. (2021) Mobile Healthcare in Action: Digital Self-tracking Practices of Students in Russia and Europe. Nauchnyj rezul'tat. Sociologiya i upravlenie [Research result. Sociology and Management]. Vol. 7. No. 2: 88–101. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.18413/2408-9338-2021-7-2-0-7.

2. Davydova A.M., Solyanova M.A., Sorensen K. (2021) Disciplinary Digital Self-Tracking Practices: Between Emancipation and Control. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i social'nye peremeny [Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes]. No. 1: 217–240. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2021.1.1797.

3. Dudina V.I., Artamonova K.N. (2018) Stigmatization of people living with HIV/AIDS and the problem of disclosure: Analysis of the online forum discussions. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Sociologiya [Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Sociology]. Vol. 11. No. 1: 66–78. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu12.2018.106.

4. Nim E.G. (2020) Student discourse on digital self-tracking: rhetorics and practices. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i social'nye peremeny [Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes]. No. 2: 191–211. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2020.2.989.

5. Crawford R. (1980) Healthism and the Medicalization of Everyday Life. International Journal of Health Services. Vol. 10. No. 3: 365–388. DOI: 10.2190/3H2H-3XJN-3KAY-G9NY.

6. Furedi F. (2004) The silent ascendancy of therapeutic culture in Britain. In: Therapeutic Culture: Triumph and Defeat. New Brunswick, N.J. Transaction Publishers: 19–50.

7. Lupton D. (2016) Towards Critical Digital Health Studies: Reflections on Two Decades of Research in Health and the Way Forward. Health. Vol. 20. No. 1: 49–61. DOI: 10.1177/1363459315611940.

8. Skrabanek P. (1994) The Death of Humane Medicine and the Rise of Coercive Healthism. Suffolk: Social Affairs Unit.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up