From digital maturity to managerial performance: a methodology for evaluating digital transformation in private healthcare organizations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26661/2522-1566/2026-3/37-14Keywords:
digital maturity; digital transformation; managerial performance; private healthcare; evaluation methodology; implementation; value realizationAbstract
Purpose. This article develops an integrated methodology that connects digital maturity with implementation quality, process change, managerial performance, and strategic value in private healthcare organizations. Design/methodology/approach. A structured integrative review and framework synthesis combined 27 substantive sources from digital-maturity research, implementation science, information-systems evaluation, health economics, and authoritative digital-health guidance; two additional publications informed the review method. Findings. The resulting Maturity-to-Performance Evaluation Framework (M2P-EF) distinguishes six evaluation layers: investment and digital assets, maturity capabilities, implementation quality, process and behavioral change, managerial performance, and strategic value. The layers are assessed across seven domains: strategic governance; data, infrastructure, interoperability, and cybersecurity; process integration and productivity; workforce capability; patient value, quality, access, and equity; financial and market sustainability; and resilience. The methodology also specifies indicator rules, noncompensatory safety and governance gates, an evidence ladder, economic analysis, and a seven-step decision protocol. Practical implications. M2P-EF can guide prospective evaluation, help managers distinguish implementation failure from value-proposition failure, and support transparent decisions to continue, modify, scale, pause, or discontinue digital initiatives. Research limitations/implications. The framework has not yet been empirically validated; content validation, feasibility testing, psychometric assessment, and longitudinal multisite evaluation are required before comparative use. Originality/value. The main contribution is to define digital maturity as an enabling capability rather than an organizational outcome and to measure it separately from performance.
JEL Classification: M10, M15, I11, O33.
References
1. Bachuk, O. (2024). Digital transformation in the health care system. Odesa National University Herald. Economy, 29(3[101]), 36-41. https://doi.org/10.32782/2304-0920/3-101-6
2. Bachuk, O., Ikonnykov, V., Rekun, G., Kovalevska, A., & Rodchenko, V. (2026). Artificial intelligence and the transformation of management models: Governance challenges and sustainability opportunities in healthcare organizations. Rivista di Studi sulla Sostenibilità, 2026(1), 61-89. https://doi.org/10.3280/riss2026oa22250
3. Bodenheimer, T., & Sinsky, C. (2014). From triple to quadruple aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. The Annals of Family Medicine, 12(6), 573-576. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1713
4. Cresswell, K. M., Anderson, S., Montgomery, C., Weir, C. J., Atter, M., & Williams, R. (2023). Evaluation of digitalisation in healthcare and the quantification of the "unmeasurable." Journal of General Internal Medicine, 38(16), 3610-3615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08405-y
5. Cresswell, K., Jahn, F., Silsand, L., Woods, L., Postema, T., Logan, M., Malkic, S., & Ammenwerth, E. (2025). Assessing digital maturity of hospitals: Viewpoint comparing national approaches in five countries. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e57858. https://doi.org/10.2196/57858
6. Cresswell, K., Williams, R., & Sheikh, A. (2020). Developing and applying a formative evaluation framework for health information technology implementations: Qualitative investigation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), e15068. https://doi.org/10.2196/15068
7. Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Opra Widerquist, M. A., & Lowery, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science, 17, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0
8. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
9. Duncan, R., Eden, R., Woods, L., Wong, I., & Sullivan, C. (2022). Synthesizing dimensions of digital maturity in hospitals: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(3), e32994. https://doi.org/10.2196/32994
10. Global Digital Health Partnership. (2026). Framework for selecting digital health maturity assessments (Version 1.1). https://gdhp.health/wp-content/uploads/GDHP-Digital-Health-Maturity-White-Paper_final_v1.1_26032026.pdf
11. Gomes, M., Murray, E., & Raftery, J. (2022). Economic evaluation of digital health interventions: Methodological issues and recommendations for practice. PharmacoEconomics, 40(4), 367-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01130-0
12. Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A'Court, C., Hinder, S., Fahy, N., Procter, R., & Shaw, S. (2017). Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e367. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8775
13. Hawrysz, L., Kludacz-Alessandri, M., & Fiałkowska-Filipek, M. (2025). Digital maturity in primary care facilities: Assessing its influence on organisational commitment and job satisfaction. Decision, 52(4), 461-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-025-00450-2
14. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2022). Evidence standards framework for digital health technologies. https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd7
15. Neunaber, T., Mortsiefer, A., & Meister, S. (2024). Dimensions and subcategories of digital maturity in general practice: Qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e57786. https://doi.org/10.2196/57786
16. Nundy, S., Cooper, L. A., & Mate, K. S. (2022). The quintuple aim for health care improvement: A new imperative to advance health equity. JAMA, 327(6), 521-522. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.25181
17. Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
18. Snowdon, A., Hussein, A., Danforth, M., Wright, A., & Oakes, R. (2024). Digital maturity as a predictor of quality and safety outcomes in US hospitals: Cross-sectional observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e56316. https://doi.org/10.2196/56316
19. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
20. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
21. Teixeira, F., Li, E., Laranjo, L., Collins, C., Irving, G., Fernandez, M. J., Car, J., Ungan, M., Petek, D., Hoffman, R., Majeed, A., Nessler, K., Lingner, H., Jimenez, G., Darzi, A., Jacome, C., & Neves, A. L. (2023). Digital maturity and its determinants in general practice: A cross-sectional study in 20 countries. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 962924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.962924
22. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
23. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
24. Wilkinson, T., Wang, M., Friedman, J., & Prestidge, M. (2023). A framework for the economic evaluation of digital health interventions (Policy Research Working Paper No. 10407). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-10407
25. Woods, L., Dendere, R., Eden, R., Grantham, B., Krivit, J., Pearce, A., McNeil, K., Green, D., & Sullivan, C. (2023). Perceived impact of digital health maturity on patient experience, population health, health care costs, and provider experience: Mixed methods case study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e45868. https://doi.org/10.2196/45868
26. Woods, L., Eden, R., Duncan, R., Kodiyattu, Z., Macklin, S., & Sullivan, C. (2022). Which one? A suggested approach for evaluating digital health maturity models. Frontiers in Digital Health, 4, 1045685. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.1045685
27. World Health Organization. (2016). Monitoring and evaluating digital health interventions: A practical guide to conducting research and assessment. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241511766
28. World Health Organization. (2021). Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020924
29. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. (2025). Cybersecurity and privacy maturity assessment and strengthening for digital health information systems. https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2025-11827-51599-78854
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Management and Entrepreneurship: Trends of Development
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
