Cluster-driven innovation and management in healthcare under regional and socio-economic disparities

  • 25 Views
  • 4 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Type of the article: Research Article

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine the socio-economic and demographic factors of intra-regional inequality in Kazakhstan and their implications for cluster-based innovation in healthcare. A hybrid approach has been used, consisting of a systematic review of 181 publications using the PRISMA 2020 protocol and econometric analysis of the 2001–2024 panel data for the districts of Kazakhstan, consisting of 3,842 observations. Fixed-effects, cluster-robust, and hierarchical mixed-effects models were employed using standardized variables of population size, fertility, mortality, migration, criminality, and investments. The results reveal that the strongest and most robust predictor of intra-regional inequality in Kazakhstan is investment in fixed capital (β = 0.466, p < 0.01; β = 0.399, p < 0.01). Population size has consistently negative effects on intra-regional inequality in Kazakhstan (β = –0.240 to –0.256, p < 0.05 and p < 0.01). In the multilevel model, fertility increases intra-regional inequality in Kazakhstan (β = 0.114, p < 0.01), whereas mortality and net migration decrease it (β = –0.150 and β = –0.037, p < 0.01). The model explained 37.1% of the variance in intra-regional inequality in Kazakhstan (R2 = 0.371). The results suggest that without balanced investment and territorially differentiated policies, cluster-based innovation in healthcare can even reinforce rather than alleviate regional disparities.

Acknowledgment
This paper was carried out within the framework of the following grant projects funded by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan: IRN AP26198345 “Reducing socio-economic inequality in the regions of Kazakhstan through investment in and improvement of the organization ofthe healthcare system”.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Coefficient estimates and 95% confidence intervals for Model 2 (OLS with clustered standard errors)
    • Figure 2. Coefficient estimates and 95% confidence intervals for Model 3 (hierarchical linear mixed model)
    • Table 1. Descriptive statistics
    • Table 2. Regression results for Model 1 (OLS with regional fixed effects with dependent variable scale(adifwage))
    • Table 3. Regression results for Model 2 (OLS with clustered standard errors)
    • Table 4. Regression results for Model 3 (hierarchical linear mixed model, random intercepts)
    • Conceptualization
      Lazat Spankulova, Alexis Belianin, Azamat Kerimbayev, Zhuldyz Asanova, Akan Nurbatsin
    • Funding acquisition
      Lazat Spankulova
    • Project administration
      Lazat Spankulova, Zhuldyz Asanova
    • Resources
      Lazat Spankulova
    • Supervision
      Lazat Spankulova, Zhuldyz Asanova, Akan Nurbatsin
    • Writing – original draft
      Lazat Spankulova, Alexis Belianin, Azamat Kerimbayev, Zhuldyz Asanova, Akan Nurbatsin
    • Writing – review & editing
      Lazat Spankulova, Alexis Belianin, Azamat Kerimbayev, Zhuldyz Asanova, Akan Nurbatsin
    • Data curation
      Alexis Belianin, Zhuldyz Asanova, Akan Nurbatsin
    • Formal Analysis
      Alexis Belianin, Azamat Kerimbayev, Akan Nurbatsin
    • Investigation
      Alexis Belianin, Azamat Kerimbayev, Zhuldyz Asanova
    • Methodology
      Alexis Belianin, Akan Nurbatsin
    • Software
      Alexis Belianin
    • Validation
      Alexis Belianin, Azamat Kerimbayev
    • Visualization
      Alexis Belianin, Azamat Kerimbayev