Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-9
Redefining an appropriate proximity between patients and health professionals in the context of teleconsultation: An analysis through the feeling of care
Originally intended as a solution to challenges in healthcare access, teleconsultation has witnessed significant growth in recent years. However, this practice has introduced non-neutral changes to the experience of care, prompting a reexamination of the concept of “caring.” While teleconsultation facilitates contact between patients and healthcare professionals, does it inherently transform their perceptions of caring and being cared for? This study employs the theoretical framework of care to investigate how the notion of “caring” is redefined from the perspectives of both patients and healthcare professionals. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of 40 interviews (24 patients and 16 health professionals), this article reveals how the transformation of the consultation framework reshapes three key dimensions of care: functional, emotional, and symbolic. Our findings further highlight how collaborative adjustments in the care relationship, enabled by co-creation dynamics within the care pathway, restructure the feeling of care, optimizing a sense of proximity between stakeholders.
AgarwalRDugasMGaoGKannanPK (2020) Emerging technologies and analytics for a new era of value-centered marketing in healthcare. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science48(1): 9–23.
2.
AgyapongAAfiJDKwatengKO (2018) Examining the effect of perceived service quality of health care delivery in Ghana on behavioural intentions of patients: The mediating role of customer satisfaction. International Journal of Healthcare Management11(4): 276–288.
3.
AshwoodJSMehrotraACowlingDUscher-PinesL (2017) Direct-to-consumer telehealth may increase access to care but does not decrease spending. Health Affairs36(3): 485–491.
4.
AudardC (2004) Care. In: CassinB (ed.) Vocabulaire Européen Des Philosophies. Paris: Le Seuil, Le Robert, pp. 211–212.
BeachMCKerulyJMooreRD (2006) Is the quality of the patient-provider relationship associated with better adherence and health outcomes for patients with HIV?Journal of General Internal Medicine21(6): 661–665.
7.
BellJJLeeSGrucaTS (2024) Bringing the doctor to the patients: Cardiology outreach to rural areas. Journal of Marketing88(1): 31–52.
8.
BerryLLBendapudiN (2007) Health care: A fertile field for service research. Journal of Service Research10(2): 111–122.
9.
BotinLNøhrC (2016) Nursing telehealth, caring from a distance. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics225: 188–192.
10.
BotrugnoC (2021) Information technologies in healthcare: Enhancing or dehumanising doctor-patient interaction?Health25(4): 475–493.
11.
BoudetJ (2023) Les médecins généralistes de Normandie ont-ils intégré la téléconsultation à leur exercice?May, p. 71.
BrouardA (2023) La téléconsultation enpharmacie d’officine: versune nouvelle dynamique de la confiance?Revue française d’éthique appliquée14(1): 179–188.
14.
BrugèreF (2014) Qu’est-ce que prendre soin aujourd’hui?Cahiers philosophiques136: 58–68.
15.
BunkersSS (2004) The lived experience of feeling cared for: A human becoming perspective. Nursing Science Quarterly17(1): 63–71.
16.
CalheirosC (2022) Comment la téléconsultation médicale “en autonomie”infléchit-elle les rapports de pouvoir dans la relation médecin-patient?Netcom. Réseaux, communication et territoires36(3–4): 7264.
17.
CayolACatherineARogueF (2022) Enjeux juridiques et éthiques du consentement des personnes âgées à la téléconsultation: l’exemple Normand. Netcom. Réseaux, communication et territoires36(3–4): 7266.
18.
ChangSO (2001) The conceptual structure of physical touch in caring. Journal of Advanced Nursing33(6): 820–827.
19.
ChâtelT (2010) Éthique du “prendre soin”: sollicitude, care, accompagnement. In: HirschE (ed.) Traité de bioéthique (Espace éthique – Poche). Toulouse: Érès, pp. 84–94.
20.
Collège des Economistes de la Santé (2021) Le système de santé Français aujourd’hui – enjeux et défis. Paris: Ouvrage Collectif. Gestion Economie. ESKA.
21.
CostaEEsteve-Del-ValleMHagedoornB (2022) Scalable co-presence: WhatsApp and the mediation of personal relationships during the COVID-19 lockdown. Social Media + Society8(1): 20563051211069053.
22.
Dorr GooldSLipkinM (1999) The doctor-patient relationship: Challenges, opportunities, and strategies. Journal of General Internal Medicine14(Suppl. 1): S26–S33.
23.
DubostN (2019) Que peut apporter l’éthique du care aux recherches en management? L’exemple des salariés aidants. Management & Prospective36(4): 69–85.
24.
DuffyJR (2013) Quality Caring in Nursing and Health Systems: Implications for Clinicians, Educators, and Leaders, 2nd edition.New York: Springer.
25.
DuffyLVEvansRBennettVHadyJMPalaniappanP (2023) Therapeutic relational connection in telehealth: Concept analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research25: e43303.
26.
DunnPHazzardE (2019) Technology approaches to digital health literacy. International Journal of Cardiology293: 294–296.
27.
DuruptMBouchyOChristopheSKivitsJBoivinJM (2016) La télémédecine en zones rurales: représentations et expériences de médecins généralistes. Santé Publique28(4): 487–497.
28.
EtonDTRidgewayJLLinzerMBoehmDHRogersEAYostKJRuttenLJFSauverJLStPoplauSAndersonRT (2017) Healthcare provider relational quality is associated with better self-management and less treatment burden in people with multiple chronic conditions. Patient Preference and Adherence11: 1635–1646.
29.
EylandIJeanA (2016) Exercice et apprentissage du métier d’infirmier: à la recherche du Care. Éducation et socialisation. Les Cahiers du CERFEE40: 1552.
30.
FaynMGdes GaretsVRivièreA (2017) Mieux comprendre le processus d’empowerment du patient. Recherches en Sciences de Gestion119(2): 55–73.
31.
FischerMAlbersS (2010) Patient-or physician-oriented marketing: What drives primary demand for prescription drugs?Journal of Marketing Research47(1): 103–121.
32.
FischerMEreautG (2012) When Doctors and Patients Talk: Making Sense of the Consultation. London: The Health Foundation.
33.
FournierCKerzanetS (2007) Communication médecin-malade et éducation du patient, des notions à rapprocher: apports croisés de la littérature. Santé Publique19(5): 413–425.
34.
FredrikssonL (1999) Modes of relating in a caring conversation: A research synthesis on presence, touch and listening. Journal of Advanced Nursing30(5): 1167–1176.
35.
GajarawalaSNPelkowskiJN (2021) Telehealth benefits and barriers. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners17(2): 218–221.
36.
GilbertPLaporteME (2023) L’orientation patient à l’hôpital public: un dispositif marketing comme compromis entre mondes. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (French Edition)38(1): 40–60.
37.
GilliganC (2009) Le care, éthique féminine ou éthique féministe?Multitudes37–38(2–3): 76–78.
GoffmanE (1963) Behavior in Public Places. New York: The Free Press.
40.
GordonHSSolankiPBokhourBGGopalRK (2020) “I’m not feeling like I’m part of the conversation”: Patients’ perspectives on communicating in clinical video telehealth visits. Journal of General Internal Medicine35(6): 1751–1758.
41.
GozoJJCRenaudJMasséJGiguèreADouvilleFTremblayMC (2024) Les effets de l’implication active des patients sur le développement de la réflexivité chez les étudiants en médecine: une étude interventionnelle. Pédagogie Médicale. Available at: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:267946866
42.
GreenTHartleyNGillespieN (2016) Service provider’s experiences of service separation: The case of telehealth. Journal of Service Research19(4): 477–494.
43.
GrosjeanSMatteF (2018) La prise de décision clinique à l’épreuve des sens. Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication14: 4161.
44.
GrosjeanSMatteF (2019) Interaction patient/médecin à distance et “travail sensoriel”: de la “mise en mots” à la “mise en ordre” des sens lors de consultations en télémédecine. In: Colloque International de Didactique Professionnelle, Longueuil, QC, Canada, 17August.
45.
GrosjeanSCherbaMNahon-SerfatyIBonnevilleLWaldolfR (2020) Quand la distance reconfigure la pratique clinique. Une analyse multimodale des interactions en télémédecine. Communiquer. Revue de communication sociale et publique29: 61–87.
46.
GuillardV (2019) Chapitre 12. Comment prendre conscience du gaspillage des objets? Quand le travail des home organisers peut “soigner” les personnes de la surconsommation. In: GuillardV (ed.) Du gaspillage à la sobriété (Méthodes & Recherches). Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur pp. 143–155.
47.
HabibJYatimFJihaneS (2019) Analyse des facteurs influençant l’émergence des pratiques de télémédecine: le cas des maisons de santé en France. Systèmes D’information & Management24: 47.
Jonas-SimpsonCM (2001) Feeling understood: A melody of human becoming. Nursing Science Quarterly14(3): 222–230.
52.
KaganPN (2008) Feeling listened to: A lived experience of humanbecoming. Nursing Science Quarterly21(1): 59–67.
53.
KahnB, et al (1997) Examining medical decision making from a marketing perspective. Marketing Letters8(3): 361–375.
54.
KehHTPangJ (2010) Customer reactions to service separation. Journal of Marketing74(2): 55–70.
55.
LarivièreB, et al (2017) “Service encounter 2.0”: An investigation into the roles of technology, employees and customers. Journal of Business Research79: 238–246.
56.
LeRougeCGarfieldMJCollinsRW (2012) Telemedicine: Technology mediated service relationship, encounter, or something else?International Journal of Medical Informatics81(9): 622–636.
57.
LoriotALarceneuxFGuillardVBertocchioJ-P (2024) Patients’ representations of perceived distance and proximity to telehealth in France: Qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research26: e45702.
58.
LucidarmeN, et al (2024) L’éducation thérapeutique du patient se réinvente. Médecine des Maladies Métaboliques, L’éducation thérapeutique à l’heure de la télémédecine18(1): 14–20.
59.
LunguAJunJJAzarmaneshOLeykinYChenCEJ (2020) Blended care-cognitive behavioral therapy for depression and anxiety in real-world settings: Pragmatic retrospective study. Journal of Medical Internet Research22(7): e18723.
60.
LuxtonDDPruittLDOsenbachJE (2014) Best practices for remote psychological assessment via telehealth technologies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice45(1): 27–35.
61.
MadelonA (2019) Étude sur l’apport de l’interrogatoire et de l’examen physique soigneux, dans le diagnostic final d’une pathologie en consultation de médecine interne: INPHYDIA, April, p. 38.
62.
MartinC (2008) Qu’est-ce que le social care? Une revue de questions. Revue Française de Socio-Économie2(2): 27–42.
63.
Mathieu-FritzA (2018) Les téléconsultations en santé mentale. Ou comment établir la relation psychothérapeutique à distance. Réseaux207(1): 123–164.
64.
MeyerMA (2020) COVID-19 pandemic accelerates need to improve online patient engagement practices to enhance patient experience. Journal of Patient Experience7(5): 657–664.
65.
MilesMBHubermanAMSaldanaJ (2019) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66.
MohtarLNBadrNG (2023) Digital bridge or tradeoff: Telehealth adoption and healthcare service quality. A scoping review. In: ZaSWinterRLazazzaraA (eds) Sustainable Digital Transformation. Cham: Springer, pp. 253–268.
67.
MolA (2008) The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. London: Routledge.
68.
MolAMoserIPolsJ (2010) Care: Putting practice into theory. In: MolAMoserIPolsJ (eds) Care in Practice. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, pp. 7–26.
69.
MolinierP (2012) Le “care”: ambivalences et indécences. In: JournetN (ed.) La Morale (Synthèse). Auxerre: Éditions Sciences Humaines, pp. 207–213.
70.
MoormanCVan HeerdeHJMoreauCPPalmatierRW (2023) Marketing in the health care sector: Disrupted exchanges and new research directions. Journal of Marketing88(1): 1–14.
71.
MorvillersJ-M (2015) Le care, le caring, le cure et le soignant. Recherche en soins infirmiers122(3): 77–81.
72.
Noël-HureauxE (2015) Le care: un concept professionnel aux limites humaines?Recherche en soins infirmiers122(3): 7–17.
73.
OslerL (2020) Feeling togetherness online: A phenomenological sketch of online communal experiences. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences19(3): 569–588.
PeresSRubenstrunkAVannesteMCoquetGLecouffeRFontaineP (2023) La télésanté: un nouvel outil pour le maintien à domicile des personnes atteintes de maladies chroniques. L’organisation des soins en France: nouvelles perspectives17(6): 467–476.
76.
PhilipJWawrykOPasanenLWongASchwetlikSCollinsA (2022) Telehealth in outpatient delivery of palliative care: A prospective survey evaluation by patients and clinicians. Internal Medicine Journal52(7): 1144–1153.
77.
PointSFourboulCV (2006) Le codage à visée théorique. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (French Edition)21(4): 61–78.
78.
PostSGRoessM (2017) Expanding the rubric of “Patient-Centered Care” (PCC) to “Patient and Professional Centered Care” (PPCC) to enhance provider well-being. HEC Forum: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Hospitals’ Ethical and Legal Issues29(4): 293–302.
79.
Raj WestwoodA (2021) Is hybrid telehealth model the next step for private healthcare in India?Health Services Insights14: 11786329211043301.
80.
RaynaudJ (2022) L’e-santé en France: déclinaisons et implications territoriales. Netcom. Réseaux, communication et territoires36(3–4): 7295.
81.
Remy-LargeauI (2011) Philosophie du soin, care et soins infirmiers: Une revue de littérature pour une recherche au carrefour de la philosophie et du soin. Recherche en soins infirmiers107(4): 49–59.
82.
Rothier BautzerÉ (2016) Chapitre 2. Une approche sociologique du soin comme travail relationnel. Journal international de bioéthique et d’éthique des sciences27(1–2): 41–57.
83.
Rothier BautzerE (2018) Le care négligé les professions de santé face au malade chronique. Bruxelles: Éditions De Boeck.
84.
RubeisGSchochowMStegerF (2018) Patient autonomy and quality of care in telehealthcare. Science and Engineering Ethics24(1): 93–107.
85.
SautereauC (2015) Répondre à la vulnérabilité: Paul Ricœur et les éthiques du care en dialogue. Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy23: 1.
86.
Schneider-KampAFerschB (2021) Detached co-involvement in interactional care: Transcending temporality and spatiality through mHealth in a social psychiatry out-patient setting. Social Science & Medicine285: 114297.
87.
ShawDMcMasterRLongoCÖzçaglar-ToulouseN (2017) Ethical qualities in consumption: Towards a theory of care. Marketing Theory17(4): 415–433.
88.
ShengXMartirosyanYHossainKSFelixRSinghA (2024) Unpacking the influencing factors of telehealth usage among older consumers. Health Marketing Quarterly41: 95–111.
89.
SmithBMagnaniJW (2019) New technologies, new disparities: The intersection of electronic health and digital health literacy. International Journal of Cardiology292: 280–282.
90.
StraussACorbinJM (1997) Grounded Theory in Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
91.
SurprenantCFSolomonMR (1987) Predictability and personalization in the service encounter. Journal of Marketing51(2): 86–96.
92.
SwanELDahlAJPeltierJW (2019) Health-care marketing in an omni-channel environment: Exploring telemedicine and other digital touchpoints. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing13(4): 602–618.
93.
Talboom-KampEPWAVerdijkNAKasteleynMJNumansMEChavannesNH (2018) From chronic disease management to person-centered eHealth; A review on the necessity for blended care. Clinical eHealth1(1): 3–7.
94.
TerrellEA, et al (2021) The evolution of telehealth from pre-COVID-19 pandemic through a hybrid virtual care delivery model: A pediatric hospital’s journey. Inter-national Journal of Telerehabilitation13(2): e6432.
95.
TrontoJC (2008) Du care. Revue du MAUSS32(2): 243–265.
96.
TrontoJCFisherB (1990) Toward a feminist theory of caring. In: AbelENelsonM (eds) Circles of Care. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 36–54.
97.
WardKVagholkarSSakurFKhatriNNLauAYS (2022) Visit types in primary care with telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic: Systematic review. JMIR Medical Informatics10(11): e40469.
98.
YuenKFChuaJYLiXWangX (2023) The determinants of users’ intention to adopt telehealth: Health belief, perceived value and self-determination perspectives. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services73: 103346.
99.
Zaccaï-ReynersN (2006) Respect, réciprocité et relations asymétriques. Quelques figures de la relation de soin. Esprit Janvier1: 95–108.
100.
ZielinskiA (2011) La vulnérabilité dans la relation de soin. “Fonds commun d’humanité”. Cahiers Philosophiques125(2): 89–106.
