INSTITUTIONAL MODEL OF STATE REGULATION OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION IN THE REHABILITATION SECTOR: MECHANISMS AND REGULATORY ARCHITECTURE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2522-1795.2026.20.1.9Keywords:
state regulation, digital transformation, rehabilitation sector, institutional model, regulatory architecture, telerehabilitation, public governance, healthcare digitalizationAbstract
The purpose of the article is to provide a theoretical justification and develop a conceptual institutional model of state regulation of digital transformation in the rehabilitation sector, integrating legal, financial, and digital infrastructure mechanisms within a unified regulatory architecture. The methodological basis of the study includes institutional, systemic, and structural-functional approaches. The research applies methods of legal analysis of regulatory acts in the field of rehabilitation and healthcare digitalization, comparative analysis of international regulatory approaches to digital health, and conceptual modeling to develop an institutional regulatory model.
The study identifies institutional fragmentation in the state regulation of digital transformation in the rehabilitation sector, manifested in the disconnected functioning of legal, financial, and digital infrastructure governance mechanisms. The absence of an integrated coordination mechanism between these components reduces the effectiveness of digital rehabilitation services, complicates inter-level governance coordination, and limits the use of data in decision-making processes. The study develops a conceptual three-level institutional model of state regulation structured across strategic, coordination-infrastructure, and operational levels, forming an integrated management cycle linking regulatory decisions, digital infrastructure, and financing mechanisms. The proposed model ensures synchronization of legal regulation, digital platforms, and funding instruments based on data-driven governance principles and introduces a mechanism of adaptive regulatory adjustment based on analytical data.
The study concludes that the implementation of the proposed institutional model enables a transition from fragmented governance to an integrated digital institutional framework in the rehabilitation sector, improves financial transparency, strengthens coordination between governance levels, and creates conditions for the development of telerehabilitation and data-driven healthcare services.
References
1. Bab'iak T.V. (2023). Kontseptualni osnovy derzhavnoho upravlinnia profilaktykoiu ta reabilitatsiieiu v umovakh voiennoho stanu [Conceptual foundations of public administration of prevention and rehabilitation under martial law]. Investytsii: praktyka ta dosvid, 18, 202–204. http://www.investplan.com.ua/?op=1&z=7900&i=18 [in Ukrainian].
2. Vivsiannyk O.M., Sazonets I.L., & Sazonets O.M. (2020). Instytutsiina transformatsiia derzhavnoho upravlinnia okhoronoiu zdorovia: Ukraina ta inozemnyi dosvid [Institutional transformation of public healthcare administration: Ukraine and foreign experience]. Kyiv: Tsentr uchbovoi literatury. [in Ukrainian].
3. Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2018). Deiaki pytannia elektronnoi systemy okhorony zdorovia: Postanova Kabinetu Ministriv Ukrainy vid 25 kvitnia 2018 r. № 411 [Some issues of the electronic healthcare system: Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 411]. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/411-2018-%D0%BF [in Ukrainian].
4. Dzhyndzhoian V.V., Zyma I.Ya., & Obukhovska L.I. (2019). Mekhanizmy instytutsiinoi transformatsii derzhavnoho upravlinnia okhoronoiu zdorovia [Mechanisms of institutional transformation of public healthcare administration]. Kyiv: NADU. [in Ukrainian].
5. Malakhov V.V. (2022). Insight into the digital health system of Ukraine (eHealth): Trends, definitions, standards, and legislative revisions. Health Policy and Technology, 11(3), 100645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100645
6. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (2023). Pro vnesennia zmin do deiakykh zakonodavchykh aktiv Ukrainy shchodo rozvytku telemedytsyny: Zakon Ukrainy vid 15 chervnia 2023 r. № 3301-IX [On amendments to certain legislative acts of Ukraine on the development of telemedicine]. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3301-20 [in Ukrainian].
7. Ministry of Health of Ukraine. (2022). Pro orhanizatsiiu nadannia medychnoi dopomohy v umovakh voiennoho stanu: Nakaz MOZ Ukrainy vid 17 veresnia 2022 r. № 1695 [On the organization of medical care under martial law]. https://moz.gov.ua/article/ministry-mandates/nakaz-moz-ukraini-vid-17092022--1695-pro-organizaciju-nadannja-medichnoi-dopomogi-v-umovah-voennogo-stanu [in Ukrainian].
8. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (2020). Pro reabilitatsiiu u sferi okhorony zdorovia: Zakon Ukrainy vid 3 hrudnia 2020 r. № 1053-IX [On rehabilitation in healthcare]. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1053-20 [in Ukrainian].
9. Ashish S., & Khoja S. (2022). Digital health and regulatory affairs: A comparative analysis of regulations in the USA, Europe, Canada, and Australia. Journal of Regulatory Science, 10(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrs10010003
10. European Commission. (2022). Proposal for a Regulation on the European Health Data Space: COM (2022) 197 final. Brussels: European Commission. https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space_en
11. Ghosh A., & Scott R.E. (2020). Telerehabilitation: Standardizing international practice and quality. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 26(8), 503–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X20945701
12. Greenhalgh T., Wherton J., Shaw S., & Morrison C. (2022). Video consultations for COVID-19 and beyond: A critical interpretive synthesis. BMJ Open, 12(1), e059097. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059097
13. International Organization for Standardization. (2021). Health informatics – Telehealth services – Quality planning guidelines (ISO Standard No. 13131:2021). https://www.iso.org/standard/69725.html
14. International Organization for Standardization. (2025). Health informatics – Information security management in health (ISO Standard No. 27799:2025). https://www.iso.org/standard/62777.html
15. International Organization for Standardization. (2021). Health software and health IT systems safety, effectiveness and security – Part 1: General requirements (ISO Standard No. 81001-1:2021). https://www.iso.org/standard/72704.html
16. Kairy D., Lehoux P., Vincent C., & Visintin M. (2019). A systematic review of clinical outcomes associated with telerehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 41(12), 1447–1465. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1408263
17. Kruse C.S., Mileski M., & Moreno J. (2023). Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: A systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 29(9), 632–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X231168742
18. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2017). Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on medical devices. Official Journal of the European Union, L 117, 1–175. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745
19. Terrell M., Boissonnault W., & Robinson A. (2021). Telerehabilitation policy report: Interprofessional policy principles and priorities. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 13(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2021.6377
20. World Health Organization. (2021). Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025. Geneva: WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020924
21. World Health Organization. (2019). WHO guideline: Recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening. https://doi.org/10.2471/9789240050907
