Department of Biomedical Informatics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, The University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022 Jan 31;22(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01769-x.
The deployment of digital health systems may be impeded by barriers that are, or are linked to underlying enduring institutions. Attempting to challenge the barriers without addressing the underpinning institution may be ineffective. This study reflects on ways actors may surmount institutionalised barriers to the uptake of digital tools in health systems.
I applied Institutional theory concepts to an autoethnographic case study of efforts to introduce a digital tool to provide citizens with medicines information.
The tool's uptake was impeded because of state regulators' institutionalised interpretation of pharmaceutical advertising laws, which rendered the tool illegal. I, along with allies beyond the health sector, successfully challenged the regulators' institutionalised interpretation of pharmaceutical advertising laws through various actions. These actions included: framing the tool as legal and constitutional, litigation, and redefining these concepts: 'advertising', 'health institution', and the role of regulatory bodies vis a vis innovation.
After identifying a barrier as being institutionalised or linked to an institution, actors might challenge such barriers by engaging in institutional work; i.e. deliberate efforts to challenge the relevant institution (e.g. a law, norm or shared belief). Institutional work may require the actions of multiple actors within and beyond the health sector, including judicial actors. Such cross-sectoral alliances are efficacious because they provide institutional workers with a broader range of strategies, framings, concepts and forums with which to challenge institutionalised barriers. However, actors beyond the health system (e.g. the judiciary) must be inquisitive about the potential implications of the digital health interventions they champion. This case justifies recent calls for more deliberate explorations within global health scholarships and practice, of synergies between law and health.
数字健康系统的部署可能会受到障碍的阻碍,这些障碍要么是或与潜在的持久制度有关。如果不解决潜在的制度问题,试图挑战这些障碍可能是无效的。本研究反思了行为者克服健康系统中数字工具采用的制度化障碍的方法。
我将制度理论概念应用于一项关于引入数字工具为公民提供药品信息的自传体案例研究。
由于国家监管机构对药品广告法的制度化解释,该工具的采用受到阻碍,这使得该工具成为非法工具。我与卫生部门以外的盟友一起,通过各种行动成功地挑战了监管机构对药品广告法的制度化解释。这些行动包括:将该工具定义为合法和符合宪法的、进行诉讼,以及重新定义这些概念:“广告”、“卫生机构”和监管机构相对于创新的角色。
在确定障碍是制度化的或与制度相关联之后,行为者可以通过进行制度工作来挑战这些障碍;即故意努力挑战相关制度(例如法律、规范或共同信仰)。制度工作可能需要卫生部门内外的多个行为者采取行动,包括司法行为者。这种跨部门的联盟是有效的,因为它们为制度工作者提供了更广泛的策略、框架、概念和论坛,以挑战制度化的障碍。然而,卫生系统以外的行为者(例如司法机构)必须对他们所倡导的数字健康干预措施的潜在影响保持好奇。这个案例证明了最近在全球卫生奖学金和实践中呼吁更有意识地探索法律和卫生之间的协同作用的合理性。