Kijsanayotin Boonchai, Ratchatorn Anawat, Suwanthaweemeesuk Kamonporn
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Sukhothai Road, Dusit District, Bangkok 10300, Thailand.
Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Ratchawithi Road, Ratchathewi District, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Oxf Open Digit Health. 2024 Jun 12;2:oqae019. doi: 10.1093/oodh/oqae019. eCollection 2024.
In 2010, a collaboration between the Ministry of Public Health and the World Health Organization Thailand highlighted the urgent need for an effective eHealth governance mechanism in the country. Despite efforts, a consensus-driven governance mechanism remains elusive. This research aimed to investigate suitable digital health governance models for Thailand by examining models from six countries (Malaysia, the Philippines, Australia, England, the USA and Canada) and gathering insights from stakeholders. In stage 1, research gathered data via literature reviews and interviews with 11 executives in Thailand's digital health sectors. The study of six countries showed diverse digital health governance influenced by political, cultural and health factors. Using the Broadband Commission's governance models, most participants preferred a dedicated digital health agency. They emphasized decisive leadership, collaboration to prevent silos and uniform health information standards. In Thailand, the Ministry of Public Health cannot oversee digital health solely but can lead in tandem with other bodies. Effective governance requires collaboration, leadership and the dedicated agency model, underscoring health information standards' significance. Stage 2 published the 'Digital Health Governance Model: Recommendation for Thailand Health Systems', presented to 101 high-level representatives. A survey indicated that over 90% of these stakeholders concurred with the study's findings and recommendations. The research suggests that while the Ministry of Public Health is central, it should not manage alone. Collaborative governance with consistent leadership is crucial for Thailand's digital health progression. Although the study lacked civil society input, its insights are pivotal for Thailand's digital health policy future.
2010年,泰国公共卫生部与世界卫生组织的一项合作凸显了该国建立有效电子健康治理机制的迫切需求。尽管做出了努力,但以共识为驱动的治理机制仍然难以实现。本研究旨在通过考察六个国家(马来西亚、菲律宾、澳大利亚、英国、美国和加拿大)的模式并收集利益相关者的见解,来探究适合泰国的数字健康治理模式。在第一阶段,研究通过文献综述和对泰国数字健康领域11位高管的访谈收集数据。对六个国家的研究表明,数字健康治理受到政治、文化和健康因素的影响而呈现出多样性。使用宽带委员会的治理模式,大多数参与者倾向于设立一个专门的数字健康机构。他们强调要有果断的领导力、防止各自为政的协作以及统一的健康信息标准。在泰国,公共卫生部无法独自监管数字健康,但可以与其他机构协同领导。有效的治理需要协作、领导力和专门机构模式,这凸显了健康信息标准的重要性。第二阶段发布了《数字健康治理模式:对泰国卫生系统的建议》,并提交给了101位高级代表。一项调查显示,超过90%的这些利益相关者认同该研究的结果和建议。该研究表明,虽然公共卫生部处于核心地位,但不应独自管理。具有一致领导力的协作治理对泰国数字健康的发展至关重要。尽管该研究缺乏民间社会的参与,但其见解对泰国数字健康政策的未来至关重要。