Stakeholder perceptions of virtual healthcare in Vietnam: qualitative content analysis of doctors, patients, and medical students

Abstract Background Virtual healthcare is increasingly entering clinical practice, yet health professions education has not consistently prepared learners to reconcile technological possibilities with clinical limitations and patient expectations. Multi-stakeholder evidence from lower- and middle-income settings remains limited. Methods This qualitative descriptive survey analyzed the free-text component of a broader study using a questionnaire containing structured items and four open-ended questions. Participants were recruited by convenience sampling at a public national pediatric hospital, a private general hospital, and a private not-for-profit medical university in Vietnam from November 2024 to April 2025. Vietnamese doctor and patient or caregiver responses were translated into English and verified against the source text; student responses were collected in English. Two experienced researchers used collaborative consensus coding. Domain presence was recorded once per respondent for each question, and respondent-level percentages were summarized descriptively. Results Of 972 parent-survey participants, 952 provided at least one analyzable free-text response. Students had the highest proportion of platform-related descriptions (35.7%) but the lowest proportion referring to clinical care activities (18.8%), compared with doctors (30.8% and 36.5%, respectively) and patients or caregivers (24.7% and 34.0%). Cost, time, and travel saving domain was identified by 66.2% to 80.3% of respondents across groups. Clinical and quality limitations were the leading barrier among doctors (55.2%), whereas technical and workforce barriers were most common among students (54.9%); patient or caregiver responses were divided almost equally between clinical and quality limitations (36.4%) and technical and workforce barriers (35.2%). Appropriate uses centered on common and non-urgent conditions, general advice, mental health care, dermatology and skin conditions, follow-up, and chronic disease management. Conclusions Doctors, patients or caregivers, and medical students shared a broad understanding of virtual healthcare but emphasized different aspects of it. These descriptive differences support curricula that connect digital fluency with clinical judgment and patient experience through authentic case selection, remote communication, privacy and consent, explicit recognition of examination limits, and clear escalation to in-person care. The findings are context-specific and should not be interpreted as population prevalence or fixed stakeholder models.