Stakeholder perceptions of virtual healthcare in Vietnam: qualitative content analysis of doctors, patients, and medical students
4 affiliations
- 1College of Health Sciences, VinUniversity
- 2Peking University Health Science Center
- 3Vinmec International Hospital
- 4College of Arts and Sciences, VinUniversity
Abstract
Background Virtual healthcare is increasingly entering clinical practice, yet health professions education has not consistently prepared learners to reconcile technological possibilities with clinical limitations and patient expectations. Multi-stakeholder evidence from lower- and middle-income settings remains limited. Methods This qualitative descriptive survey analyzed the free-text component of a broader study using a questionnaire containing structured items and four open-ended questions. Participants were recruited by convenience sampling at a public national pediatric hospital, a private general hospital, and a private not-for-profit medical university in Vietnam from November 2024 to April 2025. Vietnamese doctor and patient or caregiver responses were translated into English and verified against the source text; student responses were collected in English. Two experienced researchers used collaborative consensus coding. Domain presence was recorded once per respondent for each question, and respondent-level percentages were summarized descriptively. Results Of 972 parent-survey participants, 952 provided at least one analyzable free-text response. Students had the highest proportion of platform-related descriptions (35.7%) but the lowest proportion referring to clinical care activities (18.8%), compared with doctors (30.8% and 36.5%, respectively) and patients or caregivers (24.7% and 34.0%). Cost, time, and travel saving domain was identified by 66.2% to 80.3% of respondents across groups. Clinical and quality limitations were the leading barrier among doctors (55.2%), whereas technical and workforce barriers were most common among students (54.9%); patient or caregiver responses were divided almost equally between clinical and quality limitations (36.4%) and technical and workforce barriers (35.2%). Appropriate uses centered on common and non-urgent conditions, general advice, mental health care, dermatology and skin conditions, follow-up, and chronic disease management. Conclusions Doctors, patients or caregivers, and medical students shared a broad understanding of virtual healthcare but emphasized different aspects of it. These descriptive differences support curricula that connect digital fluency with clinical judgment and patient experience through authentic case selection, remote communication, privacy and consent, explicit recognition of examination limits, and clear escalation to in-person care. The findings are context-specific and should not be interpreted as population prevalence or fixed stakeholder models.
Related
- Conditional willingness to care for patients with Ebola virus disease: a qualitative study of risk-benefit perceptions and support needs of clinical students at a Ugandan medical school
- Patients', Relatives' and Healthcare Professionals' Experiences and Perceptions of Raising Concerns About Acute Deterioration: A Qualitative Case Study
- Medical students and clinical teachers experiences and perceptions of using AI-based simulated patients in psychiatry clinical skills training, a qualitative analysis
- Microarray patches as a potential alternative to injectable fertility medications: a qualitative study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions
- Evaluation of stakeholder perceptions of a nursing internship program using the CIPP framework: identifying strengths, weaknesses, and perception gaps between students and instructors
BibTeX
@article{nguyen2026stakeholder,
title = {{Stakeholder perceptions of virtual healthcare in Vietnam: qualitative content analysis of doctors, patients, and medical students}},
author = {Quang Thanh Nguyen and Hoang Viet Nguyen and Ngoc Luong Khanh Nguyen and Lan Thi My Dang and Ha Thi Thu Tran and Jeffrey Mayne and Siaw Cheok Liew and Pranee Liamputtong},
journal = {BMC Medical Education},
year = {2026},
month = aug,
doi = {10.1186/s12909-026-10166-1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10166-1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Stakeholder perceptions of virtual healthcare in Vietnam: qualitative content analysis of doctors, patients, and medical students
AU - Quang Thanh Nguyen
AU - Hoang Viet Nguyen
AU - Ngoc Luong Khanh Nguyen
AU - Lan Thi My Dang
AU - Ha Thi Thu Tran
AU - Jeffrey Mayne
AU - Siaw Cheok Liew
AU - Pranee Liamputtong
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/08/01
JO - BMC Medical Education
DO - 10.1186/s12909-026-10166-1
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10166-1
AB - Background Virtual healthcare is increasingly entering clinical practice, yet health professions education has not consistently prepared learners to reconcile technological possibilities with clinical limitations and patient expectations. Multi-stakeholder evidence from lower- and middle-income settings remains limited. Methods This qualitative descriptive survey analyzed the free-text component of a broader study using a questionnaire containing structured items and four open-ended questions. Participants were recruited by convenience sampling at a public national pediatric hospital, a private general hospital, and a private not-for-profit medical university in Vietnam from November 2024 to April 2025. Vietnamese doctor and patient or caregiver responses were translated into English and verified against the source text; student responses were collected in English. Two experienced researchers used collaborative consensus coding. Domain presence was recorded once per respondent for each question, and respondent-level percentages were summarized descriptively. Results Of 972 parent-survey participants, 952 provided at least one analyzable free-text response. Students had the highest proportion of platform-related descriptions (35.7%) but the lowest proportion referring to clinical care activities (18.8%), compared with doctors (30.8% and 36.5%, respectively) and patients or caregivers (24.7% and 34.0%). Cost, time, and travel saving domain was identified by 66.2% to 80.3% of respondents across groups. Clinical and quality limitations were the leading barrier among doctors (55.2%), whereas technical and workforce barriers were most common among students (54.9%); patient or caregiver responses were divided almost equally between clinical and quality limitations (36.4%) and technical and workforce barriers (35.2%). Appropriate uses centered on common and non-urgent conditions, general advice, mental health care, dermatology and skin conditions, follow-up, and chronic disease management. Conclusions Doctors, patients or caregivers, and medical students shared a broad understanding of virtual healthcare but emphasized different aspects of it. These descriptive differences support curricula that connect digital fluency with clinical judgment and patient experience through authentic case selection, remote communication, privacy and consent, explicit recognition of examination limits, and clear escalation to in-person care. The findings are context-specific and should not be interpreted as population prevalence or fixed stakeholder models.
SN - 1472-6920
ER -