Vol. 13 No. 4 (2025): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

Bridging global guidance and national practice in digital health: A comparative qualitative document analysis of WHO (2020-2025) and Türkiye (2024-2028)

PDF
  • İbrahim Halil Kayral
İbrahim Halil Kayral
Assoc. Prof. Dr., İzmir Bakırçay University, İzmir, Türkiye,

Published 2025-12-25

Keywords

  • Digital Health, WHO, Türkiye
  • Dijital Sağlık, DSÖ, Türkiye

How to Cite

Bridging global guidance and national practice in digital health: A comparative qualitative document analysis of WHO (2020-2025) and Türkiye (2024-2028). (2025). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 13(4), 2316-2325. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v13i4.2666

Copyright (c) 2025 İbrahim Halil Kayral

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite

Bridging global guidance and national practice in digital health: A comparative qualitative document analysis of WHO (2020-2025) and Türkiye (2024-2028). (2025). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 13(4), 2316-2325. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v13i4.2666

Abstract

This study aims to assess the alignment and divergence between the WHO’s global digital health strategy and Türkiye’s Ministry of Health's Strategic Plan 2024–2028, identifying strengths, gaps, and policy implications. A comparative qualitative document analysis was conducted using the official strategy documents of the WHO and Türkiye. Evidence was coded under SO1–SO4 and the CCME framework and interpreted through policy transfer, institutional isomorphism, multiple streams, network governance, and learning health systems. Türkiye shows strong alignment in SO2 (national implementation), with eNabız, MHRS, and SİZDES reflecting national ownership and monitoring. Partial alignment exists between SO3 (governance) and SO4 (people-centred systems), with multi-stakeholder participation, equity indicators, digital literacy, and ethical AI remaining limited. SO1 (global collaboration) is weakest, with little emphasis on digital public goods or open standards. While Türkiye’s KPI-driven monitoring is advanced, integration of the WHO’s learning-oriented CCME cycle is limited. Türkiye’s digital health strategy demonstrates strong national capacity but weaker global alignment. Greater engagement in WHO/ISO networks, the adoption of equity-focused indicators, and the implementation of continuous improvement mechanisms are needed to bridge national innovation with global governance.

PDF

References

  1. Alami, H., Fortin, J.-P., Gagnon, M.-P. (2019), “Some multidimensional unintended consequences of telehealth utilisation: A multi-project evaluation synthesis.”, International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 8(6), 337–348. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.88
  2. Argyris, C., Schön, D. A. (1996), “Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice.”, Addison-Wesley.
  3. Arias López, E., Hachach-Haram, N., Jamjoom, A. (2023), “Responsible innovation in health.”, PLOS Digital Health, 2(3), e0000279. doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000279
  4. Birinci, Ş. (2023). “A Digital Opportunity for Patients to Manage Their Health: Turkey National Personal Health Record System (The e-Nabız).”, Balkan Med J. 2023 May 8;40(3):215-221. doi: 10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2023.2023-2-77.
  5. Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  6. Brunn, S. D. (2021). “Nation-states: The territorial glue.”, In K. Oppermann & J. Behrens (Eds.), “The handbook of governmentality” Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781789905601.00009 Carnicero, J., Serra, P. (2020), Governance for Digital Health: The Art of Health Systems Transformation. doi: 10.18235/0002661
  7. Dalglish, S. L., and Rodriguez, D. C. (2024), “A public health systems stance.”, Public Health Reviews, 45, 1606454. doi:10.3389/phrs.2024.1606454
  8. Doğaç, A., Yüksel, M., Ertürkmen, G. L., Kabak, Y., Namlı, T., Yıldız, M. H., … Atbakan, E. (2014), “Healthcare information technology infrastructures in Turkey.”, Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 9(1), 228–234. doi:10.15265/IY-2014-0001
  9. Gümüş, N., and Çetin, F. (2022), “Explainable AI in healthcare.”, Health Informatics Journal, 28(3), 122–136. doi:10.1177/14604582221094824 DOI: 10.1177/14604582221094824
  10. Iyawa, G. E., Herselman, M., Botha, A. (2016), “Digital health innovation ecosystems in Developed and Developing Countries”, Procedia Computer Science," 100, 244–252. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.149
  11. Kingdon, J. W. (2011), “Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies”, (Updated ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Lakhotia, E. (2024). Digital health solutions to improve health care: call for papers. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 102(3), doi:10.2471/BLT.24.293205
  12. Mariano, B. (2020), “Towards a global strategy on digital health.”, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 98(7), 478–480. doi:10.2471/BLT.20.253955 McKinsey & Company. (2024). Scaling national e-health: Best practices from around the world. New York, NY
  13. Mehl, G., Tunçalp, Ö., Ratanaprayul, N., Tamrat, T., Barreix, M., Lowrance, D., … , Swaminathan, S.. (2021), “WHO SMART guidelines: Optimising country-level use of guideline recommendations in the digital age.”, The Lancet Digital Health, 3(4), e213–e216. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00043-3
  14. Nilsen, P., and Bernhardsson, S. (2019), “Context matters in implementation science: A scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes.”, BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 189. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3
  15. Özen, O., Köse, İ., Yiğit, P., Güner, Ş., Aydın, S. (2024), “Can nationwide central appointment systems reduce waiting times in Turkish public hospitals?”, Journal of Health Systems and Policies, 6(1), 1–26. doi:10.52675/jhesp.1355139
  16. Sheikh, A., Anderson, M., Albala, S., et al. (2021), “Health Information Technology and Digital Innovation for National Learning Health and Care Systems.”, The Lancet Digital Health, 3, e383-e396. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00005-4
  17. Sylla, B., Ismaila, O., & Diallo, G. (2025), “Twenty-five years of digital health toward UHC in LMICs: A rapid systematic review.”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e59042. doi:10.2196/59042
  18. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı (2024), “2024–2028 Stratejik Planı.” Ankara, Türkiye: T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı.
  19. Tiga Healthcare Technologies. (2025), “WHO review: How digital health systems strengthened Türkiye’s earthquake response.”, Istanbul, Türkiye https://www.tigahealth.com/who-review-how-digital-health-systems-strengthened-turkiyes-earthquake-response (Access date: 10.07.2025)
  20. van Kessel, R., Wong, B. L. H., Clemens, T., Brand, H. (2022), “Digital health literacy as a super determinant of health.”, Internet Interventions, 27, 100500. doi:10.1016/j.invent.2022.100500
  21. World Health Organization. (2021), “Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025.”, Geneva, Switzerland
  22. World Health Organization. (2025), “Ethics and governance of AI for health: Guidance.”, Geneva, Switzerland