IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v38y2021i4p478-503.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Varieties of health care digitalization: Comparing advocacy coalitions in Austria and Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Bogumil‐Uçan
  • Tanja Klenk

Abstract

The paper compares the politics of e‐health policy with a particular focus on the implementation of e‐health records (e‐HRs) in two SHI countries: Austria and Germany. Although these countries share many similarities in terms of political and health care regime, they differ widely with respect to health care digitalization. Thus, the question arises which configuration of factors has facilitated health system digitalization in Austria while being potentially absent in Germany. As a research strategy, we use the Advocacy Coalition Framework to identify the respective actor coalitions for and against the advancement of e‐HRs and analyze how their formation, their resources, and strategies are related to country‐specific governance structures. We find that differences in the beliefs of patient representatives; variations in the institutional access for physician associations; and, finally, differing internal dynamics within the pro e‐HRs main coalition do account for differences in health care digitalization. 本文比较了电子健康政策政治,特别聚焦于电子健康记录在奥地利和德国这两个社会医疗保险国家中的执行情况。尽管这两国在政治制度和医疗制度方面具有许多相似点,但它们在医疗数字化一事上存在巨大差异。因此,问题则是,哪些因素配置促进了奥地利医疗系统数字化,而这部分配置是德国还没有的?我们将倡导联盟框架(ACF)作为研究策略,识别支持和反对提升电子健康记录的行动者联盟,并分析联盟形成、联盟资源及策略如何与特定国家的治理结构相关。我们发现,病患代表的信念差异;内科医生机构(physician associations)的制度获取所存在的差异;以及支持电子健康记录的联盟内的不同内部动态,都是造成医疗数字化差异的原因。 El documento compara la política de la salud en línea con un enfoque particular en la implementación de registros de salud en línea en dos países de SHI: Austria y Alemania. Si bien estos países comparten muchas similitudes en términos de régimen político y de atención médica, difieren ampliamente con respecto a la digitalización de la atención médica. Por lo tanto, surge la pregunta de qué configuración de factores ha facilitado la digitalización del sistema de salud en Austria mientras está potencialmente ausente en Alemania. Como estrategia de investigación, utilizamos el Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) para identificar las respectivas coaliciones de actores a favor y en contra del avance de los registros de salud electrónicos y analizar cómo su formación, sus recursos y estrategias se relacionan con las estructuras de gobernanza específicas de cada país. . Encontramos que las diferencias en las creencias de los representantes de los pacientes; variaciones en el acceso institucional de las asociaciones de médicos; y, finalmente, las diferentes dinámicas internas dentro de la coalición principal de registros pro e‐salud explican las diferencias en la digitalización de la atención médica.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Bogumil‐Uçan & Tanja Klenk, 2021. "Varieties of health care digitalization: Comparing advocacy coalitions in Austria and Germany," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(4), pages 478-503, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:38:y:2021:i:4:p:478-503
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12435
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12435?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Larsen, Jakob Bjerg & Vrangbæk, Karsten & Traulsen, Janine M., 2006. "Advocacy coalitions and pharmacy policy in Denmark--Solid cores with fuzzy edges," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 212-224, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Senna, Pedro P. & Bonnin Roca, Jaime & Barros, Ana C., 2023. "Overcoming barriers to manufacturing digitalization: Policies across EU countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Colette S. Vogeler, 2021. "The politics and policy of science and technology: Past and future," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(4), pages 396-397, July.
    3. Hui Zhang & Huiying Ding & Jianying Xiao, 2023. "How Organizational Agility Promotes Digital Transformation: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-13, July.
    4. Angelos I. Stoumpos & Fotis Kitsios & Michael A. Talias, 2023. "Digital Transformation in Healthcare: Technology Acceptance and Its Applications," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-44, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Harrinkari, Teemu & Katila, Pia & Karppinen, Heimo, 2016. "Stakeholder coalitions in forest politics: revision of Finnish Forest Act," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 30-37.
    2. Vogler, Sabine & Habimana, Katharina & Arts, Danielle, 2014. "Does deregulation in community pharmacy impact accessibility of medicines, quality of pharmacy services and costs? Evidence from nine European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 311-327.
    3. Lluch, Maria & Kanavos, Panos, 2010. "Impact of regulation of Community Pharmacies on efficiency, access and equity. Evidence from the UK and Spain," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(2-3), pages 245-254, May.
    4. Tatiana Nevzorova & Vladimir Kutcherov, 2021. "The Role of Advocacy Coalitions in Shaping the Technological Innovation Systems: The Case of the Russian Renewable Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-24, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:38:y:2021:i:4:p:478-503. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.