Discursive Practices of Doctor-Patient Online-Communication (the Case of “Health.mail.ru”)

Introduction. Nowadays medical online services are evolving rapidly and become more and more popular. Telemedicine is developed as a part of the Russian government program “The medical system 4P”. However, doctor-patient online communication has rarely been the subject of research in modern sociology. Nevertheless, online-services are valuable resource for researchers to study and analyze information that is difficult to obtain in other ways.

Methodology and sources. The paper is devoted to the research of doctor-patient discursive practices on the internet medical advice forums by the example of “Health.mail.ru”. The general method  of  research  is  critical  discourse  analysis,  based  on the theory and methodology of N. Fairclough, which gives an opportunity to make suggestions about  social practices using text analysis  and  discursive practices analysis. A non-reactive strategy was used in the empirical research. During the research 28 800 messages, which include 14 400 messages from patients and 14 400 messages from doctors, were analyzed. Data analysis was performed in the “R” program.

Results and discussion. As a result, some assumptions about social practices and discursive practices on the online forum were formulated. The main patient’s goal on online forums is avoiding face-to-face interaction with doctors in a hospital. One of doctor’s goals is promoting their services. Interaction is carried out in a form of request from the patient and expert assessment from the doctor in response. Usually, patients send their messages anonymously. Doctors, by contrast, emphasize their identity. It helps them to maintain their image and to legitimate their expertise. Doctor’s and patient’s discourses are using special medical terminology, and they are not interpreting it. It demands from the patients being experts.

Conclusion. Online communication is a new type of doctor-patient communication, which is more democratic, more complementary and more impersonal than face-to-face communication. Usually doctor-patient online communication on the internet medical advice forums does not involve thorough analysis of individual patient’s situation and maintaining sustainable interpersonal relationships.

1. Lucivero, F. and Jongsma, K.R. (2018), “A mobile revolution for healthcare? Setting the agenda for bioethics”, Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 685–689. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104741.

2. Swan, M. (2012), “Health 2050: The realization of personalized medicine through crowdsourcing, the quantified self, and the participatory biocitizen”, Journal of personalized medicine, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 93–118. DOI: 10.3390/jpm2030093.

3. Sinitsyn, V. Skvorcova rasskazala, kak v Rossii budet rabotat' cifrovaja medicina budushhego [Skvorcova told how will work digital medicine of the future in Russia], available at: https://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201802221759-lo9l.htm (accessed 11.09.2020).

4. Federal'nyi zakon RF ot 29 iyulya 2017 g. N 242-FZ «O vnesenii izmenenii v otdel'nye zakonodatel'nye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii po voprosam primeneniya informatsionnykh tekhnologii v sfere okhrany zdorov'ya» [Federal Law of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2017 N 242-FZ “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on the Application of Information Technologies in the Sphere of Health Protection”].

5. Denton, J.A. (1978), Medical sociology, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, USA.

6. Hughes, E.C. (1970), “Book review: Profession of Medicine. Freidson, E. Dodd, Mead, NY, 1970”, Science, vol. 169, iss. 3948, p. 846. DOI: 10.1126/science.169.3948.846.

7. Parsons, T. (2015), “The professions and social structure”, Transl. by Nikolaev, V. G., Social sciences and humanities. domestic and foreign literature. Series 11: Sociology, no. 4, pp. 153–170.

8. Parsons, T. (2008), “International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences”, Transl. by Nikolaev, V.G., Scientific almanac questions of the social theory, vol. II, no. 1(2), pp. 38–71.

9. Akhnina, K.V. (2015), “Communicative pecularities of internet medical discourse”, Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Ser. Russian and foreign languages, methods of its teaching, no. 3, pp. 7–11.

10. Guschin, A.V. (2012), “The internet communication as material to analyze the physicianpatient relationship”, Sociology of Medicine, no. 1 (20), pp. 38–41.

11. Dayneko, M.P. and Iriskhanova, O.K. (2010), “Communicative strategies and tactics of expert status construction in the computer mediated institutional discourse”, Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University, no. 18, pp. 118–199.

12. Sidorova, I.G. (2017), “Medicalization of internet discourse: communicative and pragmatic characteristics of a doctor’s personal website”, Homo loquens (voprosy lingvistiki i transljatologii)[Homo loquens (linguistic and translation issues)], VolSU, Volgograd, pp. 186–199.

13. Fairclough, N. (2003), Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research, Routledge, London, NY, USA.

14. Nikolaenko, G.A. and Fedorova, A.A. (2017) “Non-Reactive Strategy: Unobtrusive Methods of Gathering Sociological Information in Web 2.0 Age – Evidence from Digital Ethnography and Big Data”, Sociology of Power, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 36–54.