Health Digital Indicators’ Juxtaposition

Tatiana Antipova

ICS, Cyprus

Cite: Antipova T. Health Digital Indicators’ Juxtaposition. J. Digit. Sci. 5(1), 55 – 62 (2023).

Abstract. A study is discussed the comparison of main health performance indicators in two different countries: New Zealand and Republic of Cyprus, and globally by approaches from the particular to the general, and multi-dimensional measures of global health indication. The objective was to establish the content validity, the reliability and sensitivity, and the validity of rank order comparisons. This study analyzed 2021-2023 annual reports World Health Organization, European Union Commission, and NZ government. The finding of this work is synopsis of Health Digital Indicators. The result of synopsis has shown that there are so many different kinds of Health Indicators that unite by digital technology to collect data for them. Author juxtaposed regional (European and Pacific) and global health indicators counted for health goals.

Keywords: health, indicators, assessing, adequacy, juxtaposition, evaluation, measurement. 


  1. State of Health in the EU. Companion Report, 2021. URL: (accessed June 2023).
  2. World Health Organization (WHO), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Delivering Quality Health Services: a Global Imperative for Universal Health Coverage, 2018, p. 93.
  3. World Health Organization (WHO), Comprehensive Safe Hospital Framework, 2015, pp. 1–12. 
  4. Health System Efficiency – WHO European Region.
  5. World Health Statistics 2021., last accessed 11 June, 2023.
  6. World Health Statistics 2022., last accessed 12 June, 2023.
  7. World Health Statistics 2023., last accessed 17 June, 2023.
  8. Antipova T., Zhelnin A., Zhelnina I. Briefs in Assessing the Adequacy of Health Care Facilities’ Fixed Assets. J. Digit. Sci. 4(1), 85 – 91 (2022).
  9. Antipova T. Need for High-Tech Medical Devices in Value-Based Health Care. Advances in Digital Science, 50-62, 2022.
  10. Antipova T., Shikina I. (2017) Informatic indicators of efficacy cancer treatment. 12th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). pp. 1 – 5, DOI: 10.23919/CISTI.2017.7976049.
  11. C. Lankford Walker (1993) A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Hospital Profitability, Journal of Hospital Marketing, 7:2, 121-138, DOI: 10.1300/J043v07n02_11.
  12. Griffith, J. R., Alexander, J. A., & Warden, G. L. (2002). Measuring comparative hospital performance / practitioner response. Journal of Healthcare Management, 47(1), 41-57. Retrieved from
  13. Antipova T. (2021) Digital View on COVID-19 Impact. In: Antipova T. (eds) Comprehensible Science. ICCS 2020. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 186, pp. 155-164. Springer, Cham.
  14. Tools and methodologies to assess the efficiency of health care services in Europe. An overview of current approaches and opportunities for improvement. Report by the Expert Group on Health System Performance Assessment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019. ISBN 978-92-76-02613-6.
  15. State of Health in the EU · Cyprus · Country Health Profile 2021.
  16. Voskanyan Y., et al. Multifactorial model of adverse events and medical safety management. J. Digit. Sci. 2(1), 29 – 39 (2020).
  17. Lupu, D., & Ramona, T. (2022). COVID-19 and the efficiency of health systems in europe.Health Economics Review, 12(1).doi:
  18. Voskanyan Y., et al. Risk management in the healthcare safety management system. J. Digit. Sci. 3(1), 41-53 (2021).
  19.  Shlyafer S., Shikina I. (2023) High-tech heart surgery in elderly patients in Russia. J. Digit. Art Humanit. 4(1), 43-49.
  20. Gerova O., Shikina I. Accessibility to Join Bone Marrow Donor Registry for Volunteers. J. Digit. Art Humanit. 4(1), 37-42, (2023).
  21. Davis, Peter et al. Efficiency, effectiveness, equity (E3). Evaluating hospital performance in three dimensions. Health Policy, Vol. 112.

Published online 25.06.2023