Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
3.5
2.4
Journals
Healthcare
Special Issues
Cost, Economics and Databases of Pharmaceutical Drugs in Public Health:...
share announcement

Cost, Economics and Databases of Pharmaceutical Drugs in Public Health: Second Edition

A special issue of Healthcare (ISSN 2227-9032). This special issue belongs to the section "Medication Management".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 July 2025 | Viewed by 3837

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Krzysztof Kus

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Social Pharmacy, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznań, Poland
Interests: pharmacology; pharmacoeconomics; medical and drug databases; quality of life; EBM; RWE; therapy costs
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Public health does not only concern patients and medical procedures aimed at improving the health of the population, subpopulations, and target groups in terms of treating disease. Rather, it includes issues such as the quality of life, the costs of procedures, disease prevention, and drugs. These issues are critical elements of national, continental and global healthcare strategies, as perfectly demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and medical decision economics are just some of the essential elements of medical strategy, which is perceived differently in different countries.

This Special Issue, entitled “Cost, Economics and Databases of Pharmaceutical Drugs in Public Health: Second Edition”, offers a unique opportunity to show the multifaceted nature of this issue, starting from costs and ending with the use of medical databases and systematic reviews in the effective use or allocation of resources to treat patients (including drugs).

I cordially invite you and your staff to submit publications to this Special Issue.

Dr. Krzysztof Kus
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Healthcare is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2700 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Insecurity
  • Food
  • Cosmetics
  • Health
  • Healthcare
  • Medical device
  • Dietary supplements
  • Policies
  • Assessment
  • Databases
  • Quality of life
  • Real World Evidence (RWE)
  • Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM)
  • Pharmacy Evidence-Based (PEB)
  • Therapy cost
  • Economics
  • Pharmacoeconomics
  • Health economics
  • Budget Impact Analyses

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Related Special Issue

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

17 pages, 1667 KiB  
Article
The Perspective on Secondary Research Practices: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
by Piotr Ratajczak, Katarzyna Oziewicz, Isolde Sommer, Dorota Kopciuch, Anna Paczkowska, Tomasz Zaprutko and Krzysztof Kus
Healthcare 2025, 13(8), 927; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13080927 - 17 Apr 2025
Viewed by 85
Abstract
Background: The surge in scientific publications during the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the need for reliable secondary studies such as Systematic Reviews, synthesising evidence to guide clinical and public health decisions. This study aimed to analyse the current practices, preferences, and challenges faced [...] Read more.
Background: The surge in scientific publications during the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the need for reliable secondary studies such as Systematic Reviews, synthesising evidence to guide clinical and public health decisions. This study aimed to analyse the current practices, preferences, and challenges faced by researchers conducting secondary studies and assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these practices. Methods: An online survey was conducted among researchers actively involved in secondary research. Email addresses were collected from PubMed for publications related to COVID-19 secondary studies between 2020 and 2022. The survey comprised 24 questions, including single- and multiple-choice formats, covering general information, Systematic Review processes, and changes during the pandemic. Statistical analysis, including Pearson’s Chi2 test, was performed on key responses to identify significant correlations. Results: This study highlights that only 26.9% of respondents use keyword-generation tools. However, those using PubMed were more likely to utilise MeSH (p = 0.01486, df = 1, Chi2 = 5.932568). Systematic Review software adoption was prevalent, particularly for Rapid Reviews, with Covidence being commonly used (p = 0.00843, df = 1, Chi2 = 6.938953), especially during the screening stage (p = 0.02400, df = 1, Chi2 = 5.094851). Despite this, many researchers still reported that they did not use any software. A total of 94.9% of respondents reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and protocol registration was strongly associated with following these guidelines (p = 0.00320, df = 2, Chi2 = 11.48858). Researchers using Embase were significantly more likely to incorporate RCTs (p = 0.00360, df = 1, Chi2 = 8.476092), while Cochrane reviewers showed a lower reliance on non-randomised trials (p = 0.02601, df = 1, Chi2 = 4.955580). During the COVID-19 pandemic, 64.3% of respondents observed a significant increase in secondary studies. Conclusions: This study highlights key trends in secondary research, emphasising adherence to established guidelines and the growing reliance on software tools. However, gaps remain in protocol registration and keyword generation practices. Addressing these gaps through targeted training may improve the quality of future secondary studies, particularly during global health crises. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cost, Economics and Databases of Pharmaceutical Drugs in Public Health: Second Edition)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

26 pages, 528 KiB  
Systematic Review
Cost-Effectiveness of the Pneumococcal Vaccine in the Adult Population: A Systematic Review
by Nam Xuan Vo, Huong Lai Pham, Uyen My Bui, Han Tue Ho and Tien Thuy Bui
Healthcare 2024, 12(23), 2490; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12232490 - 9 Dec 2024
Viewed by 1493
Abstract
Objectives: Pneumococcal disease (PD), caused by S. pneumoniae, is a serious global health issue, primarily for adults over 65, due to its high mortality and morbidity rates. Recently, broader-serotype vaccines have been introduced to cope with tremendous hospital costs and decreasing quality [...] Read more.
Objectives: Pneumococcal disease (PD), caused by S. pneumoniae, is a serious global health issue, primarily for adults over 65, due to its high mortality and morbidity rates. Recently, broader-serotype vaccines have been introduced to cope with tremendous hospital costs and decreasing quality of life. Our study aims to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of current PCVs (pneumococcal conjugate vaccines) and PPVs (pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine) from 2018 to April 2024. Methods: Articles were identified through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. Key outcomes include an improved incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), with the article’s quality assessed via the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022). In total, 23 studies were included, with 22 studies of high quality and 1 of moderate quality. Results: These articles showed that PCV20 was the most cost-effective option compared with other vaccines, including PPV23, PCV13, PCV15, and PCV15/PPV23, for both young and older adults, regardless of risk factors. PCV20, when used alone, saved greater costs than PCV20, followed by PPV23. Conclusions: For countries applying lower-valency vaccines, switching to PCV20 as a single regimen would be the most beneficial for averting pneumococcal cases and reducing costs in adults aged 18–64 and over 65. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cost, Economics and Databases of Pharmaceutical Drugs in Public Health: Second Edition)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

25 pages, 558 KiB  
Systematic Review
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pneumococcal Vaccines in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review
by Nam Xuan Vo, Huong Lai Pham, Uyen My Bui, Han Tue Ho and Tien Thuy Bui
Healthcare 2024, 12(19), 1950; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12191950 - 29 Sep 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1679
Abstract
Objectives: Pneumococcal disease, caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, is the leading cause of mortality in children worldwide. The tremendous direct cost of hospital admissions and significant indirect costs from productivity loss contribute considerably to its economic burden, with vaccination being the only efficient [...] Read more.
Objectives: Pneumococcal disease, caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, is the leading cause of mortality in children worldwide. The tremendous direct cost of hospital admissions and significant indirect costs from productivity loss contribute considerably to its economic burden, with vaccination being the only efficient protection against the illness. Our study aims to summarize the cost-effectiveness of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) implemented in the pediatric population. Methods: Employing the online databases PubMed, Embase, and Medline, we looked for economic evaluations from 2018 until March 2024. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were the primary outcomes for measuring the cost-effectiveness of PCVs. A 28-item CHEERS 2022 checklist was applied to assess the quality of the collected studies. Results: Of the 16 papers found, 9/16 discussed the lower-valent vaccines (PCV13, PCV10) and 7/16 examined the higher-valent vaccines (PCV20, PCV15). PCV13 and PCV10 involved greater costs and generated more QALY compared to no vaccination. Both PCV15 and PCV20 averted substantial healthcare costs and yielded greater quality of life than PCV13. Additionally, PCV20 was a dominant strategy compared to PCV15. Conclusions: Utilizing PCV13 is a very cost-effective option compared to not getting vaccinated. Transitioning from PCV13 to PCV20 would result in higher QALY gain and more cost-saving than switching to PCV15. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cost, Economics and Databases of Pharmaceutical Drugs in Public Health: Second Edition)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop