Resistance to technological innovation: the case of teleconsultation before and during COVID-19

Institutional studies associate resistance to and transformations of established practices with contradictions between institutional logics present in a field (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). The adoption of a new practice and its associated resources generate tensions, giving rise to a new logic that may be incompatible with prior practices (Goodrick & Reay, 2011; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008).

Institutional logics guide the daily decisions of individuals, encompassing both practices and beliefs and provide social actors with relevant vocabularies to do so (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). Consequently, changes in practices and beliefs constitute an alteration of the prevailing institutional logic (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008, p. 101).

With the introduction of teleconsultation, two professional logics are vying for control of the healthcare field: one based on patient trust, physical examination and traditional clinical attire (Lopes, Oliveira, Amaral Júnior, & Pereira, 2019; Da Luz, 2019); the other leveraging remote communication technology that explores the patient's familiar environment (Maldonado, Marques, & Cruz, 2016).

Medical teleconsultation constitutes a new institutional logic by introducing practices distinct from in-person consultation. It is supported by the potential of remote care at certain stages of treatment and offers insight into the patient's context. Although attempted informally prior to its formal adoption, this logic emerged prominently during the pandemic despite lacking recognition from the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM). The CFM resisted pressure in this direction by maintaining in-person care as the gold standard, viewing teleconsultation merely as a complementary practice. Conversely, proponents highlight improvements in patient care in terms of cost, accessibility and agility (Spotify, 2021). Companies benefit similarly from improvements in management and delivered services (Catapan & Calvo, 2020; Jorge, 2020; Instituto de Estudos de Saúde Suplementar (IESS), 2020).

This dispute is also prominent in the international literature. Thapa and Gandhi (2025), while noting doctors' positive perceptions of technology, highlight obstacles such as system requirements, network connectivity, non-standardized patient records and legal bottlenecks. Kamal et al. (2020) highlighted that the intention to use is heavily determined by doctors' confidence in engaging with technology. Examinations of digital ecosystems focused on improving communication and collaboration, particularly in resource-limited contexts, revealed barriers such as fragmented infrastructure, privacy regulations and provider resistance (Mwogosi & Mambile, 2025). Furthermore, research on telemedicine barriers in primary care indicated quality issues, such as usability and reliability, information quality concerns, such as inaccuracy or delays, and service deficits, such as a lack of support (Tabaeeian et al., 2024). From another perspective, studies examining the characteristics of digital platforms emphasize the barriers that telemedicine helps overcome (Galegale et al., 2022). Recent studies have addressed how values of care and choice, core attributes of professional logic, influence the adoption of telemedicine (Chandwani & De, 2016). Paul and McDaniel (2016) showed that acceptance was influenced by two dominant logics: one characterized by traditional service delivery and the other responding to emerging situations, pointing to the coexistence of a professional logic with a market logic. Acceptance difficulties also stem from local corporatism (Palma, Santos, & Klein, 2021), while Santoso, Soares, Fauzi, and Amallia (2024) compared telemedicine regulations across several countries, highlighting a lack of uniformity in these norms, limited technological infrastructure in certain countries and ongoing issues with data protection and privacy.

These studies reveal that there is no consensus regarding all the factors that contribute to resistance to adopting telemedicine, nor how each factor operates. Thus, there is a lack of research covering both the aspects of resistance and the subsequent coexistence observed between practices.

Therefore, this study asks: What are the obstacles, how does each operate during the emergence of the new technology, and how does the resulting competition between logics manifest in the healthcare field?

This study contributes to the literature on institutional logics by demonstrating that, in contexts of exogenous shocks, mediation by elements of a third logic, such as professional autonomy, can enable the coexistence of competing logics of the same order, favoring the adoption of previously resisted practices.

This work is grounded in institutional approaches to cooperation and resistance (Dunn & Jones, 2010; Goodrick & Reay, 2011; Johansen & Waldorff, 2015; Waldorff, Reay, & Goodrick, 2013; Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007; Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007).

This study also highlights relevant implications for medical management and public policy practice by examining governance issues of digital platforms in this field, which play an increasingly significant role in healthcare work, as well as the regulation of teleconsultation and its subsequent consequences.

Institutions represent social orders or patterns present in a context that have reached a state of maturity. Different institutional logics may present contradictions among themselves as well as conflicting prescriptions. A new logic proposes new compositions of rules, practices and meanings, which modify organizational decisions (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012).

According to Friedland and Alford (1991), the central logics of society are market, state, democracy, family and religion, each with its own patterns that influence material practices (action) and symbolic systems (meanings of action). The healthcare field has established standards of action and values; that is, its practices are guided by institutional logics that may draw upon several of the logics mentioned, with professional logic (medical practice), market logic (economic values) and family logic (well-being) standing out. These established logics are challenged by technological innovation – teleconsultation – which embodies distinct practices and values, thereby challenging traditional logics and organizations because it diverges from traditional practice (Lopes et al., 2019; IESS, 2020).

Institutional environments are constituted by multiple logics that compete, which can lead to either conflict or collaboration (Goodrick & Reay, 2011; Reay & Hinings, 2009; Waldorff et al., 2013). The concept of competition encompasses how logics seek to impose their orientations on a context (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008; Johansen & Waldorff, 2015).

Collaborative logics combine elements of different logics, such as practices, values and rules, that facilitate complementary actions (Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih, Micelotta, & Lounsbury, 2011; Reay & Hinings, 2009), while conflicting logics involve diverging practices, as the constituent elements of one logic contradict those of another, hindering complementarity (Goodrick & Reay, 2011; Waldorff et al., 2013).

In contexts where collaborative or conflicting logic prevails, elements of one logic may stand out more than others, creating the impression that one logic predominates over the rest (Goodrick & Reay, 2011; Greenwood et al., 2011; Waldorff et al., 2013). In the healthcare field, for example, it is possible to observe the predominance of professional logic, given that healthcare professionals carry out the majority of actions.

Although studies demonstrate distinct combinations during the coexistence of multiple logics, the process by which certain logics lose importance during institutional change remains insufficiently analyzed. On the other hand, change involves resistance from the predominant logic (Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007), prompting the development of strategies to overcome opposition (Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007). Lounsbury and Crumley (2007) report the resistance undertaken by traditional fiduciary funds against innovations that implied more active financial management targeting shorter-term results. To overcome this, proponents resorted, among other measures, to creating a new professional category, offering specialized training and establishing a specialized discipline in risk assessment. Dunn and Jones (2010) present a model reflecting the emergence of a new logic in training future doctors, depicting a gradual process of institutional change in healthcare while exploring both resistance and gradual coexistence between two logics: one that prioritizes holistic patient care and another grounded in scientific research.

Dunn and Jones (2010) consider that cooperation between logics at the field level depends on the degree of compatibility among established logics and the nature of their relationships. The logic of science-based medicine is strengthened through resistance maneuvers against the growth of the logic of holistic care. Different resources are deployed either to persuade or to inhibit the adoption of integrative care demands in patient treatment. Consequently, professionals advocating for change grounded in holistic care ensure that this logic remains active. In summary, Dunn and Jones (2010) propose that institutional change can simultaneously be contested on one hand and validated by innovations in a given context on the other, yielding collaboration between logics.

Traditional consultation refers to a professional logic regulated by the CFM, based on medical training and experience and guided by family logic (patient recovery) seeking to provide the best care. Assistance is based on recommended protocols and supported by values such as empathy, care and family participation (Da Luz, 2019). Rituals of medical care include consultation in a private room where the patient is interviewed, auscultated and diagnosed, alongside the use of the white coat, “whose objective is to symbolize science and reliability” (Porto, 2016, p. 1). The initial consultation, in particular, allows for physical examination and builds affective bonds that cannot be trivialized (CFM, 2022).

Teleconsultation, distinct from traditional assistance, consists of personalized remote medical care, promising speed and lower cost (Catapan & Calvo, 2020; Maldonado et al., 2016; Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV), 2020; Spotify, 2021). It allows closer contact with the patient's social reality by providing access to their home and family environment. This expands healthcare system capacity and challenges traditional paradigms of medical diagnosis and treatment in favor of self-care practices (Maldonado et al., 2016; FGV, 2020).

Table 1 summarizes the propositions regarding the practices of traditional care and the changes introduced by teleconsultation in daily practice (Freitas, 2020; Maldonado et al., 2016; IESS, 2020), based on prior work (Lopes et al., 2019; Maldonado et al., 2016; IESS, 2020).

Table 1 illustrates the multiple logics present in the healthcare field as identified in the literature, contrasting the structural and practical differences introduced by teleconsultation relative to traditional practice.

This research explored resistance to teleconsultation, initially through a documentary survey, followed by interviews with key actors in the health field to capture their understanding regarding its adoption.

This study employed a qualitative strategy aimed at identifying and understanding factors considered incompatible with medical practice that prevented the introduction of teleconsultation, while examining the changes anticipated with its adoption (Godoy, 1995).

Two historical periods of teleconsultation in Brazil were considered: the first, prior to the pandemic and the second, during the pandemic, when restrictions were debated by field actors.

In the first period, the CFM published Resolution 1643/2002, based on the Tel Aviv Declaration (1999), defining telemedicine, its principles and physician-patient responsibilities. It regulated telemedicine practice during emergencies, contingent upon subsequent in-person consultation. The resolution also regulated interconsultation among physicians without restrictions.

Subsequent attempts were made to establish teleconsultation, often informally and without CFM recognition. In 2017, the use of messaging applications was authorized for private interconsultations between medical specialists under CFM Norm 14/2017. At the time, it was not well received by the broader medical community and organizations.

In 2018, CFM Resolution 2.227/2018 attempted to formally regulate teleconsultation while maintaining a mandatory in-person initial consultation. However, this resolution was revoked in 2019 (Spotify, 2021).

During the pandemic, teleconsultation regained prominence as a means to avoid overcrowding in health centers when social distancing was recommended (FGV, 2020; Spotify, 2021). The practice re-emerged as emergency assistance under the frameworks of tele-guidance (guiding and referring isolated patients), telemonitoring (monitoring health conditions) and teleconsultations (information exchange between doctors), supported by CFM Norm No. 1756/20 (CFM, 2020) and Ministry of Health Ordinance No. 467/20 (BRASIL, 2020).

The research took place in two stages. The first stage was descriptive, consisting of documentary analysis of secondary sources (Table 2), including media articles, medical websites, blogs, newsletters, regulations, webinars and news bulletins related to telemedicine (Gil, 2008; Kauark, Manhães, & Medeiros, 2010).

These sources helped identify arguments present in the discussions regarding teleconsultation adoption, laying the groundwork for semi-structured interviews in the second stage (Alves & Silva, 1992). The sample size was determined through data saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), ending when response patterns were repeated empirically. Initial participants were selected by referrals from contacts identified by the researchers. Respondents were informed that the study was academic, focused on institutional contexts rather than personal matters and that anonymity was guaranteed.

The sample included medical organizations involved in practice (hospitals, academia, clinics, health centers), regulatory bodies (Federal Congress, health plan regulators, CFM) and individual practitioners, representing key stakeholders in the debate. This approach enabled data triangulation by contrasting the views of main field actors (Paiva Júnior, Leão, & Mello, 2011; Yin, 2015). Patients were excluded due to a lack of detailed familiarity with organizational procedures in this context.

Fourteen interviews were conducted (Table 3): eleven via videoconference, two via written questionnaires and one via audio message. The average interview duration was 25 min. Primary data collection took place between April and June 2021. The interview scripts can be found in Appendix.

The theoretical foundation underpinning the protocol is elaborated throughout the Theoretical Framework, with propositions regarding medical practices presented in Table 1. The first interview served as a pretest, accommodating script adjustments based on the methodology's flexibility for deep exploration of experiences (Yin, 2015).

The analysis of the testimonies began by identifying the logics (practices, values and rules) outlined in Table 1, observing which logic prevailed before and during the pandemic. Categories of action practices (such as medical treatment and follow-up) and medical structures (work norms, resources used) reported by interviewees were identified a priori to establish a coding strategy. Logics were subsequently categorized per Table 1.

The discourse of resistance – while expressing underlying beliefs – may draw on elements shared with arguments favoring teleconsultation. For instance, resistance arguments claiming that diagnosis requires direct dialog and physical examination embody professional medical logic. Conversely, adoption arguments highlighting the need for rapid access for remote or urban populations also draw on professional reasoning.

Thus, this study examines how resistance to an emerging logic occurs alongside its subsequent adoption, evaluating which theoretical framework best explains field outcomes: collaborative models (Dunn & Jones, 2010) or conflict models (Waldorff et al., 2013; Johansen & Waldorff, 2015; Reay & Hinings, 2009).

Analysis of the results involved discerning the logics present in the healthcare field during teleconsultation adoption, set against initial attempts under Resolution 2227/2018, subsequent emergency measures during COVID-19 and the eventual passage of Law 14.510 (BRASIL, 2022).

Interviewees demonstrated distinct perspectives on medical practices in traditional care versus those introduced by new technology. The attributes of in-person consultation, characteristic of traditional medical logic, were firmly established. Medicine was described as the art of healing and welcoming patients, where in-person interaction is essential for building relationships (R5). For R12 and the CFM (2022, p. 2), in-person care remains the “gold standard.”

Conversely, other respondents noted that physical examinations can be replaced by structured virtual interviews, thorough history-taking and systematic diagnostic reasoning, forming a medical logic distinct from the traditional model (IESS, 2020).

Actors resisting teleconsultation doubted treatment efficacy prior to and following official authorization (R5). Other concerns included degraded communication quality (R12) and the absence of emotional support inherent to in-person care (R2).

Professionals also expressed concern regarding the bad-faith usage of patients. R7 stated that patients might overwhelm physicians (“because they paid for it”) by demanding off-hours services, such as immediate email prescriptions or reports: “Ah! Now make me a report and send it to my… make a prescription like this and send it to my email”. R3 similarly noted that patients became more demanding. R2 remarked that some patients treat teleconsultations casually, emphasizing that remote consultations must be valued equally to in-person visits: “sometimes the patient has a teleconsultation thinking it's a joke. [...] you can't have that kind of feeling [...], it's a consultation it can be tele(consultation), it can be whatever. But it has to be valued the same way as if you were in person”. In these contexts, family participation during virtual visits clashed with market practices by making consultations more labor-intensive (R7).

Because physician time represents financial value, the Brazilian Medical Association (AMB) and the São Paulo Medical Association (APM) argued that teleconsultations require greater effort and knowledge, justifying higher remuneration than in-person visits–a stance aligned with market logic.

Multiple factors hindered the implementation of the 2018 CFM resolution, driving demands for new regulations. An incident at a private hospital offering unauthorized telemedicine services alarmed public-sector physicians. These physicians felt excluded from discussions, prompting a movement to revoke the resolution (de Paula, 2019). While R1, R4, R5 and R7 were aware of the 2018 resolution, they did not participate in debates; R5 cited long-standing opposition to teleconsultation. In contrast, R2 and R3 supported care innovation as a means to strengthen patient relationships, drawing on experience in sectors with active telehealth services. Concerns were also raised regarding reduced labor protections, bogus self-employment (pejotização) and outsourced contracting resulting from teleconsultation expansion (Reis, 2019), highlighting worries over compensation and working conditions tied to market logic.

Corporate interests among hospitals and health insurers were seen as driving adoption to capture cost savings. For example, following the challenge to the 2018 resolution, insurer Amil continued offering telehealth services to high-end clients (Cambricoli, 2019), underlining corporate logic. Political dynamics, including upcoming CFM leadership elections, further contributed to the resolution's revocation (Soares, 2019).

Thus, across both periods of institutionalization, conflict became evident between professional, market and corporate logics regarding innovation. Concerns over corporate cost-cutting and deteriorating working conditions created friction between traditional practice, the new remote model and family logic (which required greater physician availability than scheduled office hours).

Some professionals viewed preferences between care models as dependent on individual technological proficiency (R3, R11; Spotify, 2021). R3 noted that “the choice depends on what the specific patient brings,” while R11 stressed that virtual care must be rigorously documented: “All of this has to be in the medical record, the procedures, the way the teleconsultation was done...”.

During the pandemic, teleconsultation acquired a more humanized dimension by integrating medical professional logic with family logic, notably through family participation. This approach enabled care within the patient's social context, an element often absent in office visits (Tavarez & Ícaro, 2021). R10 highlighted that care for nonagenarians and centenarians was maintained despite clinic mobility restrictions. Family members assisted with basic physical assessments during virtual visits, such as mobility checks or abdominal palpation under guidance.

Family involvement streamlined care, saving travel and waiting time. In the pandemic context, virtual care reinforced family logic values, offering advantages over traditional visits where patients frequently faced long wait times for specialists (Tiepolo, 2021; Cordioli, 2021; Formiga, 2021).

Amid conflicts between competing professional logics, medical autonomy–a principle rooted in democratic logic–served as a key mechanism to balance tensions. R12 argued that physicians should “use their autonomy, with patient consent” to determine whether in-person care is necessary. Physicians evaluate and decide the appropriate care model for each case (Cordioli, 2021). The CFM maintained that autonomy carries ethical boundaries; Giamberardino Filho (2021) noted that autonomy is bounded by patient benefit, and patients must retain the right to choose their care format. Here, state regulation interacted with family and democratic logics.

The two professional logics gradually demonstrated complementarity, such as initiating diagnostic testing via teleconsultation followed by in-person follow-up (R2, R4). Consequently, most actors view teleconsultation as a supportive rather than a replacement tool in healthcare (IPCOM, 2020).

R2 noted that video feeds cannot fully replace direct physical examination, rendering teleconsultation primarily suitable for simple cases, triage and initial guidance.

Physical examination remained the single most significant obstacle to broader teleconsultation adoption, as it is deeply anchored in traditional medical identity.

The CFM imposed regulatory restrictions during pandemic negotiations, limiting telemedicine use in specialties heavily reliant on physical examinations, such as otolaryngology and orthopedics (IPCOM, 2020). Additionally, it mandated that initial teleconsultations be followed by in-person visits (Giamberardino Filho, 2021).

Jurisdictional restrictions requiring physicians to be registered in the specific state where the patient receives care pose further regulatory hurdles under state law and its logic (R8).

A lack of formal telemedicine training in medical school curricula hindered institutionalization (Wen, 2019). During the pandemic, the Ministry of Education issued preliminary training guidelines for medical students and residents (Valor Econômico, 2018; de Paula, 2019), although the interviewees viewed these measures as insufficient. R7 noted that “medical schools are in early stages of integration and require leadership and institutional support.” R11 emphasized that the absence of National Curriculum Guidelines (DCN) for telemedicine limits formal adoption across undergraduate health programs.

Educational settings reflected inertia among faculty and students (Valor Econômico, 2018). R4 and R5 noted that senior faculty members reinforced traditional models, supported by “informal family advice from relative practitioners” (R11), illustrating a contradiction between traditional professional logic and technological innovation.

Health insurers and plan operators, through the National Federation of Supplementary Health (Fenasaúde), actively influenced telemedicine regulation to protect substantial investments made during the pandemic amid legal uncertainties (Ícaro & Tavarez, 2021).

Concerns were raised that market-driven rules might define teleconsultation standards without adequate state oversight, potentially weakening professional standards and patient protection (AMB, 2019).

The impacts varied across specialties. R4 noted that virtual care put downward pressure on fees in certain areas, such as low radiology reimbursement rates that discouraged experienced specialists and led to overreliance on residents: “Here in my city, for example, they're paying the doctor R$ 5, there are services that pay R$ 5 for an X-ray, so radiologists don't do it, they really don't. Only residents”.

In summary, key obstacles to teleconsultation adoption prior to and during the pandemic centered on curriculum guidelines, CFM regulatory constraints and data privacy concerns – reflecting ongoing tension between state logic, competing professional logics, market and family logic.

This study identified factors that obstructed teleconsultation adoption prior to the pandemic, as well as elements that facilitated its integration during the public health crisis.

Multiple institutional logics shape the healthcare field. Pre-existing resistance was largely overcome due to the emergency conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated adoption alongside existing institutional pressures.

The data demonstrate contrasting dynamics within professional logic across both periods. Physical examination – central to traditional logic – was absent or altered in teleconsultation (Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007; Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007). Cost-reduction efforts by health plan operators raised concerns among physicians regarding compensation and working conditions, pitting professional logic against corporate and family logics (Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007; Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007). Furthermore, concerns over professional devaluation clashed with market logic, as physicians feared increased job insecurity (pejotização). Finally, the lack of formal training programs within state regulatory frameworks further delayed routine adoption.

Consequently, attempts to introduce technological innovation faced resistance from diverse actors within a field shaped by competing logics (Greenwood et al., 2011; Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007; Vermeulen, Buch, Greenwood, & Büch, 2007). Pre-pandemic arguments questioned virtual care efficacy, cited lack of personal connection, feared patient overdemand, raised concerns over precarious contracting and highlighted logistical challenges in remote regions.

Statements from official bodies, such as the CFM and the Ministry of Health, combined elements of traditional medical logic and state logic, both heavily influenced by the medical profession (Johansen & Waldorff, 2015; Goodrick & Reay, 2011; Waldorff et al., 2013).

However, during the pandemic, collaborative combinations between logics emerged. Respondents recognized the utility of teleconsultation under specific conditions. Remote care integrated elements of family logic by facilitating holistic care within the patient's home environment, demonstrating functional complementarity between professional practices (Dunn & Jones, 2010).

Crucially, the data reveal that medical autonomy, rooted in both democratic and professional logics, served as a key mechanism to mediate conflicts between traditional and remote care models (Dunn & Jones, 2010). Shared elements from a third logic (democracy) legitimized virtual care practices by enabling individual practitioners to choose the appropriate care format (Goodrick & Reay, 2011; Greenwood et al., 2011; Johansen & Waldorff, 2015; Waldorff et al., 2013). This finding contributes to the literature on institutional logic disputes, where professional autonomy as a mediating mechanism has received limited attention compared to studies focused on organizational autonomy (Noordegraaf, 2020; Thaning, Gersel, & Pedersen, 2024; Svendsen, 2014; Trusson, Hislop, & Doherty, 2018).

Market logic intersected differently with both traditional and remote care (Friedland & Alford, 1991). Physicians voiced concerns over uncompensated off-hours communication in remote models and increased workload pressures from health insurers.

This study advances the discussion on logic competition models. In healthcare innovation, initial resistance was overcome through exogenous shock and practitioner mediation. The resulting adoption remains subject to specific boundaries, demonstrating that competing logics of the same order can coexist alongside circumstantial contradictions.

Ultimately, these findings show that mediation between competing logics does not occur solely through substitution or hybridization; it can be enabled by elements of a third logic, such as professional autonomy. This mechanism is particularly effective during exogenous shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling the coexistence of distinct professional logics and the institutionalization of previously resisted practices.

This study examined the factors that delayed the regulation and formal adoption of teleconsultation in healthcare prior to its emergency implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Drawing on the literature regarding competing institutional logics, this study analyzed the dynamics of conflict and collaboration surrounding technological innovation. Concepts of resistance and institutional change were applied to evaluate how emergency regulatory approvals altered medical practice.

Documentary research informed semi-structured interviews with key actors across medical practice, healthcare administration, academia, regulatory bodies, Congress and the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS).

Initial resistance was driven by concerns over degraded working conditions, reduced compensation and corporate cost-cutting, balanced against potential gains in patient convenience and reduced waiting times. The postponement of early regulatory attempts reflected the dominant role of traditional professional logic. However, during the pandemic, practical considerations and professional experience led to widespread adoption.

Medical autonomy, as an expression of democratic logic, served as a primary mechanism to reconcile conflicting practices. This finding offers a theoretical contribution: conflicts between competing logics can be mediated by elements drawn from a third logic present in the field.

Practical implications include the need for clearer regulatory frameworks regarding physician compensation, improved platform interoperability and data governance and expanded medical school curricula dedicated to telehealth. Public administrators and health managers must standardize platform infrastructure to foster broader professional adoption.

Future research should further explore professional autonomy within democratic logic, as well as broader institutional barriers to adopting emerging healthcare technologies.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.