Conceptualizing the notion of “socially significant diseases” in strategic planning

The paper investigates how the legally formalized categories such as “socially significant diseases” and “diseases that pose a threat to others” are applied in public administration, primarily in strategic planning. First, we focus on the presence and description of the most common formats for the use of the term “socially significant diseases” in strategic documents adopted for implementation in modern Russia at the federal level and at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation; second, we consider limitations related to the use of the discussed category of indicators in the practice of monitoring observations. The aim of the research is to identify the possibilities and limitations concerning the use of the list of nosological units under consideration in strategic planning at the national level and the level of RF constituent entities. The information base for the analysis includes data from the RF Ministry of Health and the Federal State Statistics Service, as well as strategic documents on the socioeconomic development of the country and its constituent entities. The article analyzes the dynamics and structural and quantitative characteristics of population morbidity for a number of important socially significant diseases (malignant neoplasms, tuberculosis, HIV infection) in the period from 2000 to 2021. Based on these data, a conclusion is made about the difficulties of interpretation when dealing with the enlarged categories such as “socially significant diseases” and “diseases that pose a threat to others” when formulating strategic development goals for the country and its regions. We put forward a number of recommendations to address such problems. The novelty of the study lies in a critical understanding of the possibilities and limitations related to the use of the terms “socially significant diseases” and “diseases that pose a threat to others” in program documents due to the fact that their list is significantly heterogenous and includes fundamentally different nosological units. Practical significance of the work consists in clarifying the practices of using the discussed category of indicators as the indicators of regional development.