利益相关者对数字卫生监管框架制度设计的看法:来自肯尼亚、卢旺达和乌干达的见解。

Oxford open digital health Pub Date : 2025-05-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/oodh/oqaf010
Sharifah Sekalala, Shajoe J Lake
{"title":"利益相关者对数字卫生监管框架制度设计的看法:来自肯尼亚、卢旺达和乌干达的见解。","authors":"Sharifah Sekalala, Shajoe J Lake","doi":"10.1093/oodh/oqaf010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Digital health holds significant promise for transforming healthcare but presents several risks to patients and providers, especially in fragmented regulatory terrains. Experts have articulated the need for clear digital health regulatory frameworks, but there is uncertainty surrounding the design of such frameworks with governments adopting varied models, spanning both formal and informal mechanisms. Using content analysis and a stakeholder dialogue with focus group discussions, we aimed to assess stakeholders' perceptions of the benefits, costs, risks and trade-offs of different forms of regulatory frameworks in low- and middle-income countries, focusing on Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. Stakeholders consider both formal and informal regulatory approaches to be beneficial, citing regulatory maturity, political will and financial support as key factors to consider. However, the aim of regulatory design should be patient protection, the key concern being how best to protect individuals' and engender trust between citizens and government. Moreover, while stakeholder engagement is crucial, this should be done with a clear aim and is likely best done in the latter stages of regulation to facilitate peer review of initial regulatory efforts. Overall, context-specific, iterative strategies are key for digital health regulatory design, with patient protection, inclusive stakeholder engagement, flexible regulatory tools and enduring political and institutional support being key factors to consider.</p>","PeriodicalId":520498,"journal":{"name":"Oxford open digital health","volume":"3 ","pages":"oqaf010"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stakeholder perceptions on institutional design of digital health regulatory frameworks: insights from Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.\",\"authors\":\"Sharifah Sekalala, Shajoe J Lake\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oodh/oqaf010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Digital health holds significant promise for transforming healthcare but presents several risks to patients and providers, especially in fragmented regulatory terrains. Experts have articulated the need for clear digital health regulatory frameworks, but there is uncertainty surrounding the design of such frameworks with governments adopting varied models, spanning both formal and informal mechanisms. Using content analysis and a stakeholder dialogue with focus group discussions, we aimed to assess stakeholders' perceptions of the benefits, costs, risks and trade-offs of different forms of regulatory frameworks in low- and middle-income countries, focusing on Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. Stakeholders consider both formal and informal regulatory approaches to be beneficial, citing regulatory maturity, political will and financial support as key factors to consider. However, the aim of regulatory design should be patient protection, the key concern being how best to protect individuals' and engender trust between citizens and government. Moreover, while stakeholder engagement is crucial, this should be done with a clear aim and is likely best done in the latter stages of regulation to facilitate peer review of initial regulatory efforts. Overall, context-specific, iterative strategies are key for digital health regulatory design, with patient protection, inclusive stakeholder engagement, flexible regulatory tools and enduring political and institutional support being key factors to consider.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520498,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford open digital health\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"oqaf010\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101727/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford open digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oodh/oqaf010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford open digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oodh/oqaf010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数字医疗为改变医疗保健带来了巨大的希望,但也给患者和提供者带来了一些风险,特别是在分散的监管领域。专家们明确表示需要明确的数字卫生监管框架,但由于各国政府采用各种模式,包括正式和非正式机制,因此这种框架的设计存在不确定性。通过内容分析和利益相关者对话与焦点小组讨论,我们旨在评估利益相关者对低收入和中等收入国家不同形式监管框架的收益、成本、风险和权衡的看法,重点是肯尼亚、卢旺达和乌干达。利益相关者认为正式和非正式的监管方法都是有益的,并将监管成熟度、政治意愿和财政支持作为考虑的关键因素。然而,监管设计的目的应该是保护病人,关键问题是如何最好地保护个人,并在公民和政府之间建立信任。此外,尽管利益相关者的参与至关重要,但这应该有一个明确的目标,最好在监管的后期阶段进行,以促进对初始监管工作的同行审查。总体而言,具体情况的迭代战略是数字卫生监管设计的关键,患者保护、包容性利益相关者参与、灵活的监管工具以及持久的政治和机构支持是需要考虑的关键因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stakeholder perceptions on institutional design of digital health regulatory frameworks: insights from Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.

Digital health holds significant promise for transforming healthcare but presents several risks to patients and providers, especially in fragmented regulatory terrains. Experts have articulated the need for clear digital health regulatory frameworks, but there is uncertainty surrounding the design of such frameworks with governments adopting varied models, spanning both formal and informal mechanisms. Using content analysis and a stakeholder dialogue with focus group discussions, we aimed to assess stakeholders' perceptions of the benefits, costs, risks and trade-offs of different forms of regulatory frameworks in low- and middle-income countries, focusing on Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. Stakeholders consider both formal and informal regulatory approaches to be beneficial, citing regulatory maturity, political will and financial support as key factors to consider. However, the aim of regulatory design should be patient protection, the key concern being how best to protect individuals' and engender trust between citizens and government. Moreover, while stakeholder engagement is crucial, this should be done with a clear aim and is likely best done in the latter stages of regulation to facilitate peer review of initial regulatory efforts. Overall, context-specific, iterative strategies are key for digital health regulatory design, with patient protection, inclusive stakeholder engagement, flexible regulatory tools and enduring political and institutional support being key factors to consider.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信