NEW DYNAMICS OF THE PATIENT-DOCTOR RELATIONSHIP IN DIGITALIZED HEALTHCARE

Year 2025, Volume: 28 Issue: 3, 525 - 540, 30.09.2025

Zübeyde Demircioğlu

https://doi.org/10.61859/hacettepesid.1666086

Abstract

Digital technologies have significantly transformed the delivery of healthcare services, reshaping not only clinical processes but also the dynamics of the patient-physician relationship. The widespread adoption of digital technologies in healthcare enables patients to access health information more easily and rapidly, thereby redefining interaction patterns, enhancing patient participation, and facilitating the emergence of new care models. This study examines the effects of digitalization on the patient-physician relationship in five main themes: (1) the dissemination and decentralization of medical knowledge, (2) the weakening of medical authority and information asymmetry, (3) the transformation of the spatial structure of healthcare services and interaction patterns, (4) the emergence of new skills and responsibilities for physicians and patients, and (5) the rise of the participatory patient model. The findings reveal that digitalization weakens the traditional hierarchical structure of medicine and reduced the informational asymmetry between patients and physicians, leading to a more interactive, participatory and egalitarian model. This shift requires patients to improve their digital health literacy and physicians to acquire new competencies, such as effectively using digital tools, combating online misinformation, and guiding patients accurately. However, this transformation is closely linked not only to individual capabilities but also to structural factors, such as physicians’ increasing workloads, and limited time per patient, and the availability of professional support mechanisms. In addition, factors such as patients’ socioeconomic status, education level, and geographic access influence the effective use of digital health technologies, creating inequalities in digital health literacy. Therefore, the integration of digitalization into healthcare should be approached through a comprehensive strategy that includes technological infrastructure, workforce planning, time management, institutional support mechanisms, and policies aimed at reducing digital inequalities.

Keywords

Digital health , patient-doctor relationship , participatory medicine , medical authority , information asymmetry

DİJİTALLEŞEN SAĞLIKTA HASTA-HEKİM İLİŞKİSİNİN YENİ DİNAMİKLERİ

Abstract

Dijital teknolojiler, sağlık hizmeti sunumunu köklü biçimde dönüştürerek klinik süreçlerin yanı sıra hasta-hekim ilişkisinin dinamiklerini de yeniden şekillendirmektedir. Sağlık alanında dijital teknolojilerin yaygınlaşması, hastaların sağlık bilgilerine daha hızlı ve kolay erişimini sağlayarak hasta-hekim ilişkisinin dinamiklerini yeniden tanımlamakta, hasta katılımını güçlendirmekte ve sağlık hizmetlerinin sunumunda yeni modellerin gelişmesine zemin hazırlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda bu çalışma, dijitalleşmenin sağlık sisteminde yarattığı dönüşümlerin hasta-hekim ilişkisine etkilerini beş ana başlık altında incelemektedir: (1) tıbbi bilginin yayılması ve merkezsizleşmesi, (2) tıbbi otoritenin ve bilgi asimetrisinin zayıflaması, (3) sağlık hizmetlerinin mekânsal yapısının ve ilişki biçimlerinin dönüşümü (4) hekimlerin ve hastaların edinmesi gereken yeni becerilerin ve sorumlulukların ortaya çıkması, (5) katılımcı hasta modelinin yükselişi. Bulgular, dijitalleşmenin geleneksel tıbbi statüyü ve bilgi asimetrisini zayıflattığını, daha etkileşimli, katılımcı ve eşitlikçi bir hasta-hekim ilişki modeli yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu yeni model hastaların dijital sağlık okuryazarlığı becerilerini geliştirmesi; hekimlerin ise dijital araçları etkin biçimde kullanabilme, çevrimiçi bilgi kirliliği ile mücadele etme ve hastaları doğru biçimde yönlendirme gibi yeni yeterlilikler kazanmasını gerektirmektedir. Ancak bu dönüşüm bireysel becerilerin ötesinde hekimlerin artan iş yükü, hasta başına ayrılan sürenin sınırlılığı ve mesleki destek mekanizmaları gibi yapısal faktörlerle yakından ilişkilidir. Ayrıca hastaların sosyo-ekonomik durumu, eğitim düzeyi ve coğrafi erişim gibi etkenler dijital sağlık teknolojilerinin etkin kullanımını belirlemekte ve dijital sağlık okuryazarlığında eşitsizliklere yol açmaktadır. Bu nedenle dijitalleşmenin sağlık sistemine entegrasyonu, teknolojik altyapı ile birlikte insan kaynağı planlaması, zaman yönetimi, kurumsal destek mekanizmaları ve dijital eşitsizlikleri azaltmaya yönelik politikaları içeren bütüncül bir yaklaşımla ele alınmalıdır.

Keywords

dijital sağlık , hasta-hekim ilişkisi , katılımcı sağlık modeli , bilgi asimetrisi , tıbbi otorite

Ethical Statement

Çalışma etik kurul izni gerektirmemektedir.

References

• Ahmad, F., Hudak, P. L., Bercovitz, K., Hollenberg, E., & Levinson, W. (2006). Are physicians ready for patients with Internet-based health information? Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(3), e535.
• Andreassen, H., Trondsen, M., Kummervold, P. E., Gammon, D., & Hjortdahl, P. (2006). Patients who use e-mediated communication with their doctor: New constructions of trust in the patient-doctor relationship. Qualitative Health Research, 16(2), 238–248.
• Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
• Bellander, T., & Landqvist, M. (2020). Becoming the expert: Constructing health knowledge in epistemic communities online. Information, Communication & Society, 23(4), 507–522.
• Bernardi, R., & Wu, P. F. (2022). Online health communities and the patient-doctor relationship: An institutional logics perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 314, 115494.
• Bury, M. (1997). Health and illness in a changing society. Routledge.
• Coetzer, J. A., Loukili, I., Goedhart, N. S., Ket, J. C., Schuitmaker-Warnaar, T. J., Zuiderent-Jerak, T., & Dedding, C. (2024). The potential and paradoxes of eHealth research for digitally marginalised groups: A qualitative meta-review. Social Science & Medicine, 350, 116895.
• de Grood, C., Raissi, A., Kwon, Y., & Santana, M. J. (2016). Adoption of e-health technology by physicians: a scoping review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 9, 335–344.
• Dorn, S. D. (2015). Digital health: Hope, hype, and Amara’s law. Gastroenterology, 149(3), 516–520.
• Ergur, A., & Çobanoğlu, C. (2020). Sihirli dokunuştan temassız sağaltıma hasta-hekim ilişkisinin dönüşümü: robotik cerrahinin insani sonuçları. Istanbul University Journal of Sociology, 40(1), 467–497.
• Fahy, E., Hardikar, R., Fox, A., & Mackay, S. (2014). Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape. Australasian Medical Journal, 7(1), 24–28.
• Ferguson, T. (2007). E-patients: How they can help us heal healthcare. In Jo Anne L. Earp, Elizabeth A. French & Melissa B. Gilkey (Eds.) Patient advocacy for health care quality: strategies for achieving patient-centered care, (pp. 93–150). Jones and Barlett.
• Foucault, M. (2002). Kliniğin doğuşu: Tıbbi algının arkeolojisi (Ş. Ünsaldı, Çev.), Epos.
• Freidson, E. (1970). Profession of medicine: A study of the sociology of applied knowledge, Harper & Row.
• Gartner, J. B., Abasse, K. S., Bergeron, F., Landa, P., Lemaire, C., & Côté, A. (2022). Definition and conceptualization of the patient-centered care pathway, a proposed integrative framework for consensus: a concept analysis and systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 558.
• Gillam, S. (2016). The reappearance of the sick man: A landmark publication revisited. British Journal of General Practice, 66(653), 616–617.
• Gunnarsson, L., & Wemrell, M. (2024). Assessing the validity of counter-authority knowledge: The case of Swedish women’s epistemic patchworking around the risks of copper IUD use. Journal of Critical Realism, 23(5), 480–502.
• Győrffy, Z., Radó, N., & Meskó, B. (2020). Digitally engaged physicians about the digital health transition. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0238658.
• Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Singh, R. P., & Suman, R. (2021). Telemedicine for healthcare: Capabilities, features, barriers, and applications. Sensors International, 2, 100117.
• Hardey, M. (1999). Doctor in the house: The Internet as a source of lay health knowledge and the challenge to expertise. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21(6), 820–835.
• Hardey, M. (2001). “E-health”: The internet and the transformation of patients into consumers and producers of health knowledge. Information, Communication & Society, 4(3), 388–405.
• Hernandez, A. M. (2021). Patient engagement and the epistemics of medical authority: Diagnosis resistance in US primary care (Publication No. 2550669688) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California], ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
• Hodge, J. G. Jr., Gostin, L. O., & Jacobson, P. D. (1999). Legal issues concerning electronic health information: privacy, quality, and liability. JAMA, 282(15), 1466–1471.
• Hollander, J. E., & Carr, B. G. (2020). Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for COVID-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(18), 1679–1681.
• Jewson, N. D. (1976). The disappearance of the sick-man from medical cosmology, 1770-1870. Sociology, 10(2), 225–244.
• Jongsma, K. R., Bekker, M. N., Haitjema, S., & Bredenoord, A. L. (2021). How digital health affects the patient-physician relationship: an empirical-ethics study into the perspectives and experiences in obstetric care. Pregnancy Hypertension, 25, 81–86.
• Kingod, N., & Cleal, B. (2019). Noise as dysappearance: Attuning to a life with type 1 diabetes. Body & Society, 25(4), 55–75.
• Kjærulff, E. M., & Langstrup, H. (2023). From ‘parallel world’ to ‘trading zone’: How diabetes-related information from social media is (not) discussed in clinical consultations. Social Science & Medicine, 320, 115756.
• Kivits, J. (2004). Researching the 'informed patient’: The case of online health information seekers. Information, Communication & Society, 7(4), 510–530.
• Kivits, J. (2013). E-health and renewed sociological approaches to health and illness. In Kate Orton- Johnson & Nick Prior (Eds.). Digital sociology: Critical perspectives, (pp. 213–226). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Lämmerhirt, D., & Schubert, C. (2025). Old data in new media? Problematic popularity of digital health data and consumer devices. Information, Communication & Society, 28(6), 1121–1136.
• Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 1-9.
• Lupton, D. (2013). The digitally engaged patient: Self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Social Theory & Health, 11, 256–270.
• Lupton, D. (2018). Digital health: critical and cross-disciplinary perspectives. Routledge.
• Marent, B., Henwood, F., Darking, M., & EmERGE Consortium. (2018). Ambivalence in digital health: Co-designing an mHealth platform for HIV care. Social Science & Medicine, 215,133–141.
• McKinlay, J. B., & Marceau, L. D. (2002). The end of the golden age of doctoring. International Journal of Health Services, 32(2), 379–416.
• Meskó, B., Drobni, Z., Bényei, É., Gergely, B., & Győrffy, Z. (2017). Digital health is a cultural transformation of traditional healthcare. mHealth, 3, 38.
• Nettleton, S. (2004). The emergence of e-scaped medicine? Sociology, 38(4), 661–679.
• Oudshoorn N. (2012). How places matter: Telecare technologies and the changing spatial dimensions of healthcare. Social Studies of Science, 42(1), 121–142.
• Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Collier-Macmillian.
• Peckman, C. (2018, January 17). Medscape National Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2018. Medscape. https://www.medscape.com/slideshow/2018-lifestyle-burnout-depression-6009235
• Pilnick, A., & Dingwall, R. (2011). On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: A critical review. Social Science & Medicine, 72(8), 1374–1382.
• Ramachandran, M., Brinton, C., Wiljer, D., Upshur, R., & Gray, C. S. (2023). The impact of eHealth on relationships and trust in primary care: a review of reviews. BMC Primary Care, 24(1), 228.
• Resmi Gazete. (2022, Şubat 10). Uzaktan sağlık hizmetlerinin sunumu hakkında yönetmelik. Sayı: 31746. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/02/20220210-2.htm
• Ronquillo, Y., Meyers, A., Korvek, S. J. (2023, May 1) Digital health. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470260/
• Rozenblum, R., & Bates, D. W. (2013). Patient-centred healthcare, social media and the Internet: the perfect storm? BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(3), 183–186.
• Sağlık Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkiye sağlık okuryazarlığı düzeyi ve ilişkili faktörleri araştırması. https://dosyamerkez.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/50280/0/turkiye-saglik-okuryazarligi-ve-iliskili-faktorleri-arastirmasipdf.pdf
• Sinsky, C., Colligan, L., Li, L., Prgomet, M., Reynolds, S., Goeders, L., Westbrook, J. Tutty, M., & Blike, G. (2016). Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(11), 753–760.
• Smith, S., & Duman, M. (2009). The state of consumer health information: an overview. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(4), 260–278.
• Sosnowy, C. (2014). Practicing patienthood online: Social media, chronic illness, and lay expertise. Societies, 4(2), 316–329.
• Stivers, T., & Timmermans, S. (2020). Medical authority under siege: How clinicians transform patient resistance into acceptance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 61(1), 60–78.
• Szasz, T. S. & Hollender, M. H. (1956). A contribution to the philosophy of medicine: the basic models of the doctor-patient relationship. AMA Archives of Internal Medicine, 97(5), 585–592.
• Tai-Seale, M., Olson, C. W., Li, J., Chan, A. S., Morikawa, C., Durbin, M., Wang, W., & Luft, H. S. (2017). Electronic health record logs indicate that physicians split time evenly between seeing patients and desktop medicine. Health Affairs, 36(4), 655–662.
• Tan, S. S. L. & Goonawardene, N. (2017). Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: a systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(1), e9.
• Temel, K., & Aydın, M. (2018). Sağlık hizmetlerinde, hasta-hekim ilişkisinde yaşanan bilgi asimetrisinin ortaya çıkardığı ekonomik sorunlar: Çanakkale örneği. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, 21(4), 745–765.
• Thimbleby, H. (2013). Technology and the future of healthcare. Journal of Public Health Research, 2(3), e28. Timmermans, S., & Oh, H. (2010). The continued social transformation of the medical profession. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1), 94–106.
• Turner, B. S. (1995). Medical power and social knowledge (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Türk Tabipleri Birliği (TTB). (2021). Teletıp uygulamalarına yönelik Türk Tabipleri Birliği Etik Kurulu görüşü, https://www.ttb.org.tr/userfiles/files/teletip_hakkinda_gorus.pdf
• Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine, 240, 112552.
• Williatte-Pellitteri, L., Benyahia, N., Moulin, T., & Giraudeau, N. (2021). Digital health: an important public health tool. In Susan C. Scrimshaw, Sandra D. Lane, Robert A. Rubinstein & Julian Fisher (Eds.). Handbook of social studies in health and medicine, (pp. 478–490). Sage.
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2020). First WHO infodemic manager training. https://www.who.int/teams/epi-win/infodemic-management/1st-who-training-in-infodemic-management
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/gs4dhdaa2a9f352b0445bafbc79ca799dce4d.pdf
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). Classification of digital interventions, services and applications in health: a shared language to describe the uses of digital technology for health. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/373581/9789240081949-eng.pdf?sequence=1
• Zheng, H., Sin, S. C. J., Kim, H. K., & Theng, Y. L. (2020). Cyberchondria: A systematic review. Internet Research, 31(2), 677–698.