Dijital Sağlık Uygulamalarının Sağlık Turizmi Kapsamında Medikal Turizm Açısından Değerlendirilmesi: Sistematik Bir Derleme

Abstract

Amaç: Sağlık sektöründe teknoloji kullanımı, halkın teknolojiye olan güveninin artmasıyla doğru orantılı artış göstermektedir. Araştırma, sağlık turizmi perspektifinden medikal turizm özelinde dijital sağlık uygulamalarının maliyeti ile sağlık hizmetlerine erişim üzerindeki etkisini sistematik inceleme yöntemleri kullanarak ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: PRISMA kontrol listesi doğrultusunda, Web of Science, Emerald, Scopus ve PubMed veri tabanları kullanılarak yapılan sistematik derleme çalışmasında, dahil edilme ve dışlama kriterlerine göre toplamda 12 çalışma değerlendirmeye alınmıştır. Bulgular: Çalışmaların ABD (n=2), Mali, Kanada, Nijerya (n=2), Azerbaycan, Norveç, Birleşik Arap Emirlikleri ve Almanya’da yürütüldüğü görülmüştür. Çalışmaların odak noktası hastaların fiziksel olarak sağlık kurumuna başvurmak yerine teletıp yöntemleri kullanmaları durumunda maliyet açısından kuruma sağlanan faydanın ortaya çıkarılmasıdır. Maliyetlerin azaltılması, kaliteli hizmete erişim ve yaşam kalitesinin iyileştirilmesi açısından dijital sağlık uygulamalarının etkisi vurgulanmaktadır. Sonuç: Sağlıkta dijitalleşme ve turizm alanı gelişmekte olan ve farklı açılardan değerlendirilmeye açık bir konu olarak gündemde yer edinmeye devam etmektedir. Bu doğrultuda çalışma, politika yapıcı ve hastane yöneticileri için karar verme süreçlerinde kanıt sağlayabilir ve kolaylaştırıcı bir referans olabilir.

Keywords

• Dijitalleşme
• hastane yönetimi
• maliyet
• sağlık hizmetleri

Evaluation of Digital Health Applications in terms of Medical Tourism within the Scope of Health Tourism: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Aim: The use of technology in the health sector increases in direct proportion to the increase in the public's trust in technology. From the perspective of health tourism, the research aims to reveal the cost of digital health applications and their impact on access to health services by using systematic review methods. Method: A systematic review was conducted using the Web of Science, Emerald, Scopus, and PubMed databases, following the PRISMA checklist. A total of 12 studies were evaluated based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: The studies were conducted in the USA (n=2), Mali, Canada, Nigeria (n=2), Azerbaijan, Norway, the United Arab Emirates and Germany. The focus of the studies is to reveal the benefit to the institution in terms of cost if patients use telemedicine methods instead of physically applying to the health institution. The impact of digital healthcare applications is emphasized in terms of reducing costs, accessing quality services and improving the quality of life. Conclusion: The field of digitalization and tourism in healthcare continues to be on the agenda as a developing subject that is open to evaluation from different perspectives. In this direction, the study can provide evidence and be a facilitating reference for policymakers and hospital administrators in their decision-making processes.

Keywords

• Digitalization
• hospital management
• cost
• healthcare services

References

1. 1. Kim HL, Hyun SS. The future of medical tourism for individuals’ health and well-being: a case study of the relationship ımprovement between the UAE (United Arab Emirates) and South Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. 2022;2-19.
2. 2. Jakovljevicwes T, Jakulin TJ, Papa G. The role of colour sensing and digitalization on the life quality and health tourism. International Quality Conference 13th IQC. 2019;712-720.
3. 3. Smith M, Puczko L. Health and Wellness Tourism (2.Baskı b.). 2013. New York: Routledge.
4. 4. George BP, Henthorne TL. The incorporation of telemedicine with medical tourism: A study of consequences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. 2009;18(5):512-522.
5. 5. Osman WRS, Awang H, Birnin-Kudu AH. Digital-health tourism research-methodology coronavirus-vaccination trials: a study ınterpreting geometa-data profiling to use mobile-health technologies Nigeria. Emerging Advances in Integrated Technology. 2021;2(2):30-37.
6. 6. Seto E, Smith D, Jacques M, Morita PP. Opportunities and challenges of telehealth in remote communities: case study of the Yukon telehealth system. JMIR Medical Informatics. 2019;7(4):e11353.
7. 7. Alhajri N, Simsekler MCE, Alfalasi B, et al. Exploring quality differences in telemedicine between hospital outpatient departments and community clinics: cross-sectional study. JMIR Medical Informatics. 2022;10(2):e32373.
8. 8. Wienhold J, Mösch L, Rossaint R, et al. Teleconsultation for preoperative evaluation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A technical and medical feasibility study. European Journal of Anaesthesiology EJA. 2021;38(12):1284-1292.

9. 9. Pillai N, Bishnai MM, Jakhiya M. Impact of digitalization of the healthcare ındustry and covid 19 management: case of the UAE. International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies. Kharagpur: 12th ICCCNT. 2021. doi:10.1109/ICCCNT51525.2021.9580088.
10. 10. Newby K, Teah G, Cooke R, et al. Do automated digital health behaviour change interventions have a positive effect on self-efficacy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review. 2021;15(1):140-158.
11. 11. Council of Europe. Data Protection Report. Digital Solutions to Fight Covid-19. Council of Europe. 2020. https://rm.coe.int/prems-120820-gbr-2051-digital-solutions-to-fight-covid-19-text-a4-web-/16809fe49c adresinden alındı. Erişim tarihi:12.10.2022.
12. 12. Mgbemena ON, Sears I, Levine B. Augmenting traditional cardiac and medical care in Africa via telemedicine: a pilot study. Cureus. 2021;13(8):1-5.
13. 13. Westwood AR. Is hybrid telehealth model the next step for private healthcare in India? Health Services Insights. 2021;(14):1-4. doi: 10.1177/11786329211043301.
14. 14. Jadhav S, Yeravdekar R, Kulkarni M. Cross-border healthcare access in South Asian countries: learnings for sustainable healthcare tourism in India. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014;157:109-117. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.014.
15. 15. Cohen GI. How to regulate medical tourism and why it matters for bioethics. Developing World Bioethics. 2012;12(1):9-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00317.x.
16. 16. Connell J. Medical tourism: Sea, sun, sand and surgery. Tourism Management. 2006;27(6):1093-1100. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.11.005.
17. 17. Yılmaz H, Yılmaz N. Dünyada ve Türkiye'de dijital sağlık turizmi uygulamaları. Sağlık Akademisyenleri Dergisi. 2022;9(1):64-72.
18. 18. Jackson LA, Berber DS. Ethical and sustainable healthcare tourism development: A primer. Tourism and Hospitality Research. 2015;15(1):19-26.
19. 19. Acciarini C, Boccardelli P. Resilient companies in the time of Covid-19 pandemic: a case study approach. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy. 2021;10(3):336-351. doi: 10.1108/JEPP-03-2021-0021.
20. 20. Akalın B, Veranyurt Ü. Sağlıkta dijitalleşme ve yapay zeka. SDÜ Sağlık Yönetimi. 2020;2(2):131-141.
21. 21. Herselman M, Botha A, Toivanen H, Myllyoja J, Fogwill T, Alberts R. A digital health ınnovation ecosystem for South Africa. IST-Africa Week Conference. 2016:1-11. doi: 10.1109/ISTAFRICA.2016.7530615.
22. 22. Psiha MM, Vlamos P. IoT applications with 5G connectivity in medical tourism sector management: third-party service scenarios. In GeNeDis 2016: Geriatrics (pp. 141-154). Springer International Publishing.
23. 23. Wong BKM, Hazley SASA. The future of health tourism in the industrial revolution 4.0 era. Journal of Tourism Futures. 2020;7(2):267-272.
24. 24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group*. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(4):264-269.
25. 25. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version. 2006;1(1):b92.
26. 26. Bronson DE, Davis TS. Finding and Evaluating Evidence Systematic Reviews and Evidence - Based Practice. Oxford University Press. 2011 doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195337365.001.0001.
27. 27. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage. 1989.
28. 28. Ballester JMS, Scott MF, Owei L, Neylan C, Hanson CW, Morris JB. Patient preference for time-saving telehealth postoperative visits after routine surgery in an urban setting. Surgery. 2018;163(4):672-679.
29. 29. Sigal I, Dayal P, Hoch JS, Mouzoon JL, Morrow E, Marcin JP. Travel, time and cost savings associated with a university medical center's video medical interpreting program. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2020;26(10):1234-1239.
30. 30. Bagayoko CO, Traoré D, Thevoz L, et al. Medical and economic benefits of telehealth in low-and middle-income countries: results of a study in four district hospitals in Mali. BMC Health Services Research. 2014;14(1):1-6.
31. 31. Aiyegbajeje FO, Ajayi DD. Mobile health communication: Effective reduction of patients’ travel needs to hospitals. International Journal of Healthcare Management. 2020;13(1):28-34.
32. 32. Gu D, Humbatova G, Xie Y, Yang X, Zolotarev O, Zhang G. Different roles of telehealth and telemedicine on medical tourism: An empirical study from Azerbaijan. In Healthcare. 2021;9(8);1073.
33. 33. Benis A, Banker M, Pinkasovich D, et al. Reasons for utilizing telemedicine during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: an internet-based international study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021;10(23):5519.
34. 34. Buvik A, Bergmo TS, Bugge E, Smaabrekke A, Wilsgaard T, Olsen JA. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2019;21(2):e11330.