Optimization of medical care in regional health care: perspectives and barriers

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The perspectives of Russian health care in the transition to personalized medicine are realized in the formation of an innovative digital health care system. Forming with the use of digital technologies the accessibility of health care provides enormous social advantages in regional conditions and assumes a qualitatively new level of regional health care system.

The problems of the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring isolation, quarantine and social distancing and characterized by the formation of trends of social “atomization”, accelerated the dependence on digital health care, and served as a “catalyst for the development and implementation of a wide range of remote monitoring technologies in health care delivery”. However, the digitalization process is “objectively slow” in Russia. The research establishes a high differentiation of digitalization of regional health care systems in the Russian Federation.

The implementation in regional health care of digital technologies, which have a high potential for improving the efficiency of the health care system, is limited by institutional barriers.

The article presents a typology of institutional barriers to the digitalization of the regional health care system: on federal level [legal barriers, organizational and managerial (logistical) and technological barriers], regional level (financial barriers), level of medical organizations and users (medical staff and patients) [behavioral barriers, organizational and managerial (logistic) and technological barriers].

Modern health care is experiencing large-scale digital technology inclusion, which can radically change the health care system by determining the accessibility and quality of medical care. However, the provision of cost-effective and quality health care initiated by the regional health care digitalization process is limited by institutional barriers at the federal, regional, medical organization and user levels.

About the authors

Irina L. Krom

Saratov State Medical University named after V.I. Razumovsky

Email: irina.crom@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1355-5163
SPIN-code: 4854-1094

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Saratov

Marina V. Erugina

Saratov State Medical University named after V.I. Razumovsky

Email: lab48@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4253-5313
SPIN-code: 7016-3160

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head of the Department

Russian Federation, Saratov

Maria G. Yeremina

Saratov State Medical University named after V.I. Razumovsky

Email: 913693@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9752-1352
SPIN-code: 9205-0670

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Applicant, Assistant Professor

Russian Federation, Saratov

Maria D. Sapogova

Saratov State Medical University named after V.I. Razumovsky

Email: maria.sapogova@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6495-9884
SPIN-code: 2289-3152

Graduate student

Russian Federation, Saratov

Maria M. Orlova

Saratov State University

Email: maria2010@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2340-8343
SPIN-code: 1399-9666

Cand. Sci. (Psy.), Assistant Professor

Russian Federation, Saratov

Tatiana P. Lipchanskaya

Saratov State Medical University named after V.I. Razumovsky

Email: tatyanalp@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7755-1834
SPIN-code: 5698-6429

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Assistant Professor

Russian Federation, Saratov

Marina V. Vlasova

Saratov State Medical University named after V.I. Razumovsky

Author for correspondence.
Email: vmv-22@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5813-4154
SPIN-code: 4939-6247

Cand. Sci. (Soc.), Assistant Professor

Russian Federation, Saratov

References

  1. Prysyazhnaya NV. Medicine in the world of the future: the weight of traditions and press innovations? In: Sociology and society: traditions and innovations in the social development of the regions: Collection of reports of the VI All-Russian Sociological Congress; 2020 Oct 14–16; Tyumen. Moscow: RSS; FCTAS RAS; 2020. P:2601–2623. doi: 10.19181/kongress.2020.315
  2. Egorova AV. Digitalization of regional health care system in the context of digital economy. Nauchnyi ezhegodnik Tsentra analiza i prognozirovaniya. 2018;(1):256–261.
  3. Alimbaev AA, Bitenova BS, Yesenbekova TI. Methodology for assessing social and economic efficiency of digitalization of health system. Economics: the Strategy and Practice. 2020;15(3):25–37.
  4. Prysyazhnaya NV, Reshetnikov AV. Education during the pandemic: vectors of digital transformation. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2022;(4):149–151. doi: 10.31857/S013216250018694-6
  5. World Health Organization [Internet]. Digital Health. Resolution WHA71.7. Seventy-First World Health Assembly, World Health Organization, 2018. Available from: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA71/A71_R7-en.pdf
  6. Seljelid B, Varsi C, Solberg Nes L, Øystese KA, Børøsund E. A digital patient-provider communication intervention (InvolveMe): Qualitative study on the implementation preparation based on identified facilitators and barriers. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(4):e22399. doi: 10.2196/22399
  7. Morozov VV, Seryapina YV, Bessmeltsev VP, Sluev VA. Issues telemedicine in national health care. Fundamental Research. 2014;(10 Pt 7):1365–1368.
  8. Digital revolution in health care: achievements and challenges [Internet]. St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF 2017). (In Russ). Available from: https://tass.ru/pmef-2017/4278264
  9. Myzrova KA, Tuganova EA. Digitalization of health care as a perspective direction of development of the Russian Federation. Russian Journal of Innovation Economics. 2018;8(3):479–486. doi: 10.18334/vinec.8.3.39355
  10. Puzin SN, Sertakova OV, Reshetov DN. Telemedicine as a vector of innovative development of the health services delivery system. Vestnik Vserossiiskogo obshchestva spetsialistov po mediko-sotsial'noi ekspertize, reabilitatsii i reabilitatsionnoi industrii. 2018;(2):65–73.
  11. Analytical Center under the Government of the Russian Federation [Internet]. Digitalization of medicine will change the usual way of working in the industry. Available from: http://ac.gov.ru/events/014209.html
  12. Rusanovsky GA, Bylina SG. Challenges of digitalization of rural healthcare in Russia in the context of regional differences. Ekonomicheskaya bezopasnost' i kachestvo. 2019;(2):27–33.
  13. Kim J, Alanazi H, Daim T. Prospects for telemedicine adoption: prognostic modeling as exemplified by rural areas of USA. Foresight and STI Governance. 2015;9(4):32–41. doi: 10.17323/1995-459X.2015.4.32.41
  14. Tsvetkova GS, Grozova OS. The theory and the practice of institutional risks. Vestnik Chuvashskogo universiteta. 2012;(1):476–480.
  15. Lebedeva-Nesevrya NA. Theory, methodology and practice of analyzing socially determined risks to public health [dissertation]. Volgograd; 2014. (In Russ).
  16. Korobkova OK. Digitalization as a new stage of genesis of the healthcare services. Business. Education. Law. 2020;(1):255–261. doi: 10.25683/VOLBI.2020.50.169
  17. Barashkov GM, Yeremina MG, Subbotina VG. Telemedicine in solving the problem of restricting the availability of medical care in remote areas: legal barriers of implementation and operation (review). Saratov Journal of Medical Scientific Research. 2021;17(4):755–760.
  18. Kundryukov VA. Digitalization of healthcare: achievements and challenges. In: National concept of quality: state and public protection of consumer rights: Collected theses of reports of International Scientific and Practical Conference; 2019 Sept 30–Oct 01; Saint Petersburg. Saint Petersburg; 2019. P:197–200. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_41546925_68159921.pdf
  19. Baranov AA, Vishneva EA, Namazova-Baranova LS. Telemedicine — prospects and difficulties before a new development stage. Pediatric Pharmacology. 2013;10(3):6–11.
  20. Zaidan BB, Zaidan AA, Mat Kiah ML. Impact of data privacy and confidentiality on developing telemedicine applications: a review participates opinion and expert concerns. Int J Pharmacol. 2011;7(3):382–387. doi: 10.3923/ijp.2011.382.387
  21. Palacholla RS, Fischer N, Coleman A, et al. Provider- and patient-related barriers to and facilitators of digital health technology adoption for hypertension management: scoping review. JMIR Cardio. 2019;3(1):e11951. doi: 10.2196/11951
  22. Nohl-Deryk P, Brinkmann JK, Gerlach FM, Schreyögg J, Achelrod D. Hürden bei der Digitalisierung der Medizin in Deutschland — eine Expertenbefragung. Gesundheitswesen. 2018;80(11):939–945. (In German). doi: 10.1055/s-0043-121010
  23. Maksimov IB, Diashev AN, Sinopalnikov VI, et al. Telemedicine: history, analysis of a state and prospects. Russian Journal of Telemedicine and e-Health. 2018;(3):103–110.
  24. Gajarawala SN, Pelkowski JN. Telehealth benefits and barriers. J Nurse Pract. 2021;17(2):218–221. doi: 10.1016/j.nurpra.2020.09.013
  25. Bally ELS, Cesuroglu T. Toward integration of mHealth in primary care in the Netherlands: A qualitative analysis of stakeholder perspectives. Front Public Health. 2020;7:407. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00407
  26. Versluis A, van Luenen S, Meijer E, et al. Series: eHealth in primary care. Part 4: Addressing the challenges of implementation. Eur J Gen Pract. 2020;26(1):140–145. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2020.1826431
  27. Gleiss A, Lewandowski S. Removing barriers for digital health through organizing ambidexterity in hospitals. J Public Health. 2022;30(1):21–35. doi: 10.1007/s10389-021-01532-y
  28. Prysyazhnaya NV, Koriagin MO. The perception of outcomes of health care modernization by medical specialists. Sociology of Medicine. 2019;18(2):122–127. doi: 10.18821/1728-2810-2019-18-2-122-127
  29. Harst L, Timpel P, Otto L, et al. Identifying barriers in telemedicine-supported integrated care research: scoping reviews and qualitative content analysis. J Public Health. 2020;28(1):583–594. doi: 10.1007/s10389-019-01065-5
  30. Glock H, Nymberg VM, Bolmsjo BB, et al. Attitudes, barriers, and concerns regarding telemedicine among Swedish primary care physicians: A qualitative study. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:9237–9246. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S334782
  31. Shchupak AYu, Ostrogolovy VM, Lunin AD, Voronov AI. Side effects of digitalization of educational technologies in health care. In: Methodological support of pedagogical process in medical university in the conditions of competence approach realization: Materials of the Inter-Regional Educational-Methodical Conference for Higher School Teachers; 2019 Apr 18; Khabarovsk. Khabarovsk: Far-Eastern State Medical University; 2020. P:125–128. (In Russ).
  32. Lyadova AV. Digital health: myth or reality. In: Culture, personality, society in the modern world: methodology, empirical research experience: Materials of the XXI International Conference in memory of Professor L.N. Kogan; 2018 March 22–23; Ekaterinburg. Ekaterinburg: UrFU; 2018. P:1451–1461. Available from: http://elar.urfu.ru/bitstream/10995/58996/1/978-5-91256-403-1_2018_154.pdf
  33. Noskova MV. Cognitive component of psychological readiness of doctors to digitalization in health care. In: Innovative potential of science development in the modern world: achievements and innovations: Collection of scientific articles on the materials of the III International Scientific-Practical Conference; 2020 June 9; Ufa. Ufa: SPC Herald of Science; 2020. P:280–285. (In Russ).
  34. Chistyakov AV, Tretyakov MA. Perception of digitalization of health care as a trend to reduce the quality of medical care for the population. In: Modern applied research: Proceedings of the Fourth National Scientific and Practical Conference; 2020 March 16–18; Shakty. Novocherkassk: SRSTU; 2020. P:266–270.
  35. Vladzymyrskyy AV. Patient initiated direct-to-consumer telemedicine consultations: first step for a methodology systematization. Russian Journal of Telemedicine and e-Health. 2017;(2):109–120.
  36. Ali MA, Alam K, Taylor B, Ashraf M. Examining the determinants of eHealth usage among elderly people with disability: The moderating role of behavioural aspects. Int J Med Inform. 2021;149:104411. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104411
  37. McLachlan S, Dube K, Johnson O, et al. A framework for analysing learning health systems: Are we removing the most impactful barriers? Learn Health Syst. 2019;3(4):e10189. doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10189
  38. Graetz I. The health IT special issue: enduring barriers to adoption and innovative predictive methods. Am J Manag Care. 2020;26(1):19. doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2020.42140
  39. Muller AE, Berg RC, Jardim PSJ, Johansen TB, Ormstad SS. Can remote patient monitoring be the new standard in primary care of chronic diseases, post-COVID-19? Telemed J E Health. 2022;28(7):942–969. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2021.0399
  40. Reshetnikov AV, Prisyazhnaya NV, Pavlov SV, Vyatkina NV. Perception of the COVID-19 pandemic by Moscow residents. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2020;(7):138–143. doi: 10.31857/S013216250009481-2
  41. Houlding E, Mate KKV, Engler K, et al. Barriers to use of remote monitoring technologies used to support patients with COVID-19: rapid review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(4):e24743. doi: 10.2196/24743
  42. Christensen C, Waldeck A, Fogg R. How disruption can finally revolutionize healthcare. Innosight & The Christensen Institute. 2017. Available from: https://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/how-disruption-can-finally-revolutionize-healthcare

Copyright (c) 2023 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
 


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies