Coding Category1 | Frequency by groups |
|---|
| | Government officials | Healthcare providers | Industry associations | Others2 |
|---|
| | UK | India | UK | India | UK | India | UK | India |
|---|
Prospects | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | | 1 | 1 |
Sectors | 2 | | | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Advantages | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 2 |
Regulation | 1 | | | 4 | | 1 | | |
Quality | 2 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | |
Litigation | 2 | | | 2 | | | | |
Data safety | 1 | | 1 | 4 | | | | |
Other barriers | 1 | | 1 | 5 | 1 | | 1 | 1 |
Policy issues | 1 | | | 5 | 1 | | | 1 |
- 1 The coding categories were identified from the interview transcripts. They are described here. Prospects: the participants were asked their opinion on telemedicine trade globally and between the UK and India. Sectors: the stakeholders were asked to identify which sectors within telemedicine would be most successful from an international trade perspective. Advantages: Participants were asked what advantages trade in telemedicine would bring to the countries involved. Regulation: the respondents identified regulation as a key barrier to trade in telemedicine. Quality: similarly, stakeholders were concerned about the standards of care that telemedicine could offer, especially if provided from another country. Litigation: many participants were concerned about the legal implications of malpractice in cross-border telemedicine. Data safety: restrictions from the European Union (EU) on India's data management were highlighted as a key constraint. Other barriers: this category summarises all the other barriers identified by the stakeholders interviewed. Policy issues: respondents were asked to identify policy changes that would be needed for a relationship between the UK and India to take off.
- 2 Think tanks, NGOs and academic institutions
