Skip to main content

Table 2 Coding categories and frequency by groups

From: The potential for bi-lateral agreements in medical tourism: A qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives from the UK and India

Coding Category1

Frequency by groups

 

Government officials

Healthcare providers

Medical Tourism Facilitators

Medical Tourists (UK nationals)

Industry associations

Insurance company

Others1

 

UK

India

UK

India

UK

India

 

UK

India

  

Data

   

8

1

1

    

1

Countries

 

1

 

10

 

1

  

2

 

2

Regulation

1

  

8

 

1

  

1

1

2

Quality

 

1

1

4

 

1

1

 

1

1

3

Litigation

2

 

1

2

 

1

2

 

2

 

1

three hour "rule"

2

1

 

3

  

2

 

2

 

2

Role of government

1

  

6

 

1

  

1

 

4

Diaspora

2

2

1

6

  

1

 

1

 

3

Local population

1

1

 

3

 

1

  

1

 

3

Continuity of care

1

 

1

1

  

2

   

1

Prospects

2

 

1

2

1

     

1

Perception of India

  

3

 

1

  

1

 

1

1

  1. 1The coding categories were identified from the interview transcripts, and influenced by the literature search. They are summarised here. Data: Any data that the participant had available on the size of the medical tourism market, either in global/national terms or numbers from their institution. Countries: Participants were asked to name countries involved in medical tourism, both as importers and exporters. Regulation: Although not specifically asked for, the lack of regulation of the medical tourism market, and the perceived lack of regulation in health services in the exporting country were mentioned by a significant number of the participants as a key concern. Quality: Similarly, the quality of the healthcare services obtained abroad was a key concern for the stakeholders interviewed. Litigation: Many stakeholders showed concerns about the differences in malpractice laws and litigation procedures between the exporting and importing countries. Three hour 'rule': One of the key barriers highlighted specific to the UK market, the three hour flight restriction on how far patients can travel to obtain healthcare was also highlighted by the respondents. Role of government: A bi-lateral agreement between the UK and India on medical tourism would need both governments to be involved; we therefore asked participants on what role (if any) they thought government should have in this. Diaspora: The Diaspora appeared to be a key target audience for medical tourism, as the perception was that many would prefer to return "home" for care. Local population: Another key concern highlighted in the literature and many of the interviews was the impact medical tourism would have on the healthcare available to the local population. Continuity of care: Many of the stakeholders highlighted the lack of continuity of care a patient would experience when going abroad as a major issue. Additionally, some also feared they may cause a bigger burden on the health system if they have complications once they return. Prospects: This category included respondents' views on the prospects for a bi-lateral trade relationship on medical tourism between the UK and India. Perception of India: Participants' perception of India was a key influence on their views on the viability for this type of trade relationship between the two countries.
  2. Think tank, NGO, Public Health Foundation of India
Back to article page