Patients’ Representations of Perceived Distance and Proximity to Telehealth in France: Qualitative Study

Abstract

Background In the last 2 decades, new technologies have emerged in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated the adoption of technology by both health care professionals and patients. These technologies create remote care practices that bring several benefits to the health care system: easier access to care, improved communication with physicians, and greater continuity of care. However, disparities in the acceptance and use of telehealth tools still exist among patients. These tools also disrupt conventional medical practices and prompt a new reassessment of the perceptions of distance and proximity as physical (ie, time and space dimensions) and nonphysical (ie, behavioral dimensions) concepts. The reasons why patients do or do not adopt telehealth tools for their care and therefore their perspectives on telehealth remain unanswered questions. Objective We explored the barriers as well as the motivations for patients to adopt telehealth tools. We specifically focused on the social representations of telehealth to establish a comprehensive conceptual framework to get a better understanding of how telehealth is perceived by patients. Methods This study uses a qualitative design through in-depth individual interviews. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling method with balanced consideration of gender, age, location (urban/rural), and socioeconomic background. After collecting informed consent, interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the thematic analysis methodology. Results We conducted 14 interviews, with which data saturation was reached. The 2 main opposed dimensions, perceived proximity and distance, emerged as an essential structure for understanding the social representations of telehealth. A logic of engagement versus hostility emerged as the main tension in adopting telehealth, almost ideological. Interestingly, practical issues emerged regarding the adoption of telehealth: A logic of integration was opposed to a logic of constraints. Altogether, those dimensions enabled us to conceptualize a semiotic square, providing 4 categories with a coherent body of social representations. Due to the dynamic nature of these representations, we proposed 2 “paths” through which adherence to telehealth may improve. Conclusions Our semiotic square illustrating patients’ adherence to telehealth differentiates socially beneficial versus socially dangerous considerations and pragmatic from ideological postures. It shows how crucial it is to consider perceived distance and proximity to better understand barriers and motivations to adopting telehealth. These representations can also be considered as leverage that could be modified to encourage the step-by-step adhesion process. Even if reducing the perceived temporal distance to in-person meeting and enhancing the perceived proximity of access to care may be seen as efficient ways to adopt telehealth tools, telehealth can also be perceived as a care practice that threatens the patient-physician relationship. The patient-oriented perceived value turns out to be critical in the future development of and adherence to telehealth tools.