Jakovljevic Mihajlo Michael, Pejcic Ana V
Health Economics and Pharmacoeconomics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia.
Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia.
Front Public Health. 2017 Aug 11;5:211. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00211. eCollection 2017.
Strong growth of interdisciplinary sciences might find exceptional example in academic health economics. We decided to observe the quantitative output in this science since the beginning of the twenty-first century.
Electronic search of the published literature was conducted in four different databases: one medical database-MEDLINE/PubMed, two general databases-Scopus/Elsevier and Web of Science (WoS), and one specialized health economic database-NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED). The applied combination of key words was carefully chosen to cover the most commonly used terms in titles of publications dealing with conceptual areas of health economics. All bibliographic units were taken into account.
Within the time horizon from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2016, without language or limitations on bibliographic unit types, we identified an output ranging approximately from 60,345 to 88,246 records with applied search strategy in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus/Elsevier, and WoS. In NHS EED, we detected 14,761 records of economic evaluations of health interventions during the period in which database was maintained and regularly updated. With slightly more than one-third of the identified records, USA clearly dominates in this field. United Kingdom takes a strong second place with about 12% of identified records. Consistently, USA and UK universities are the most frequent among the top 15 affiliations/organizations of the authors of the identified records. Authors from Harvard University contributed to the largest number of the identified records.
There is a clear evidence of both the upward stream of blossoming in health economics publications and its acceleration. Based on this bibliographic data set, it is difficult to distinguish the actual impact growth of this output provided dominantly by academia with modest contribution by pharmaceutical/medicinal device industry and diverse national government-based agencies. Further insight into the citation track record of these individual publications could provide helpful upgrade and a perspective on ongoing development.
跨学科科学的强劲发展在学术健康经济学领域或许能找到突出范例。我们决定观察自21世纪初以来该学科的量化产出。
在四个不同数据库中对已发表文献进行电子检索：一个医学数据库——MEDLINE/PubMed，两个综合数据库——Scopus/Elsevier和科学网（WoS），以及一个专门的健康经济数据库——英国国家医疗服务体系经济评估数据库（EED）。精心挑选了关键词的应用组合，以涵盖涉及健康经济学概念领域的出版物标题中最常用的术语。所有文献单元都被纳入考量。
在2000年1月1日至2016年12月31日的时间范围内，在MEDLINE/PubMed、Scopus/Elsevier和WoS中，采用应用搜索策略，在不设语言或文献单元类型限制的情况下，我们识别出约60345至88246条记录。在NHS EED中，在该数据库维护和定期更新期间，我们检测到14761条健康干预经济评估记录。美国以略多于三分之一的识别记录在这一领域明显占据主导地位。英国以约12%的识别记录位居第二。美国和英国的大学始终是识别记录作者的前15个所属机构/组织中最常见的。哈佛大学的作者贡献的识别记录数量最多。
有明确证据表明健康经济学出版物数量呈上升趋势且加速增长。基于这一文献数据集，很难区分主要由学术界提供、制药/医疗器械行业和各国政府机构贡献相对较小的这一产出的实际影响力增长情况。对这些个别出版物的引用记录进行进一步深入研究，可能会为持续发展提供有益的提升和视角。
