Digital Healthcare Technologies in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of Taiwan and Sweden

Digital Healthcare Technologies in a Comparative Perspective


  • Mirza Muhamad Fahad Baig Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden



Symbolic interaction, digital healthcare technologies,, doctor-patient relationship, Taiwan, Sweden


In discussing the potential benefits and drawbacks of healthcare technologies, questions arise within a social perspective as to what digital healthcare technologies have to offer. Objective: To analyze the symbolic interaction framework to understand the implementation of digital healthcare technologies and the resulting interaction with medical doctors. Methods: Interviews were conducted with eight doctors; five Taiwanese and three Swedish doctors were participated. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data from the participants. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and data analysis guided by symbolic interaction theory. Results: Four themes were identified from the interviews: 1) Interpreting digital healthcare technologies, 2) Interaction with digital healthcare technologies, 3) Digital dilemma and (4) Future of digital culture. Conclusions: The results reveal many issues regarding digital healthcare technologies, such as: symbolic meanings, purposes of usage, expectations, problems, and possible solutions. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to explore the perspectives of Taiwanese and Swedish medical doctors towards digital healthcare technologies using symbolic interactionism.


Feenberg A. Questioning technology. Routledge; 2012 Aug. doi: 10.4324/9780203022313.

Zolotova M and Giambattista A. Designing cognitive ergonomics features of medical devices. Aspects of cognitive interaction. The Design Journal. 2019 Apr; 22(sup1): 463-74. doi: 10.1080/14606925.2019.1595432.

Coiera E. Technology, cognition and error. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2015 Jul; 24(7): 417-22. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003484.

Aksan N, Kısac B, Aydın M, Demirbuken S. Symbolic interaction theory. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2009 Jan; 1(1): 902-4. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.160.

Carter MJ and Fuller C. Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of symbolic interactionism. Current Sociology. 2016 Oct; 64(6): 931-61. doi: 10.1177/0011392116638396.

Handberg C, Thorne S, Midtgaard J, Nielsen CV, Lomborg K. Revisiting symbolic interactionism as a theoretical framework beyond the grounded theory tradition. Qualitative Health Research. 2015 Aug; 25(8): 1023-32. doi: 10.1177/1049732314554231.

Smullen A and Hong PK. Comparing the Health Care Systems of High‐Performing A sian Countries. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies. 2015 May; 2(2): 347-55. doi: 10.1002/app5.76.

Immergut EM. The rules of the game: The logic of health policy-making in France, Switzerland, and Sweden. Structuring politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. 1992; 4(4): 57-89. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511528125.004.

Saltman RB, Yeh MJ, Liu Y. Can Asia provide models for tax-based European health systems? A comparative study of Singapore and Sweden. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2022 Apr; 17(2): 157-74. doi: 10.1017/S1744133120000390.

Whitelaw S, Mamas MA, Topol E, Van Spall HG. Applications of digital technology in COVID-19 pandemic planning and response. The Lancet Digital Health. 2020 Aug; 2(8): e435-40. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30142-4.

Ghosal S, Bhattacharyya R, Majumder M. Impact of complete lockdown on total infection and death rates: A hierarchical cluster analysis. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. 2020 Jul; 14(4): 707-11. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.05.026.

Born B, Dietrich AM, Müller GJ. Do lockdowns work? A counterfactual for Sweden. Covid Economics. 2020 May; 16(11): 1. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249732.

Summers J, Cheng HY, Lin HH, Barnard LT, Kvalsvig A, Wilson N, et al. Potential lessons from the Taiwan and New Zealand health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Regional Health-Western Pacific. 2020 Nov; 4: 100044. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2020.100044.

Fiske A, Buyx A, Prainsack B. The double-edged sword of digital self-care: Physician perspectives from Northern Germany. Social Science & Medicine. 2020 Sep; 260: 113174. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113174.

Győrffy Z, Radó N, Mesko B. Digitally engaged physicians about the digital health transition. PloS one. 2020 Sep; 15(9): e0238658. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238658.

Tam KP and Milfont TL. Towards cross-cultural environmental psychology: A state-of-the-art review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2020 Oct; 71: 101474. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101474.

Baig MM. Adding meaning to medicine. Epsilon Archive for Student Projects. 2021 Sep; 1-32.

Mead GH, Schubert C. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago press; 1934.

Lehn DV. Digitalization as “an Agent of Social Change” in a Supermarket Chain: Applying Blumer's Theory of Industrialization in Contemporary Society. Symbolic Interaction. 2020 Nov; 43(4): 637-56. doi: 10.1002/symb.502.

Prasad P. Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: A symbolic interactionist study of work computerization. Academy of Management Journal. 1993 Dec; 36(6): 1400-29. doi: 10.5465/256817.



DOI: 10.54393/pjhs.v4i01.472
Published: 2023-01-31

How to Cite

Baig, M. M. F. (2023). Digital Healthcare Technologies in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of Taiwan and Sweden: Digital Healthcare Technologies in a Comparative Perspective. Pakistan Journal of Health Sciences, 4(01), 43–48.



Original Article