The state of health economics and pharmaceoconomics research in Russia: a systematic review

Abstract

Objectives To investigate the state of health economic research in Russia available in the English language by describing the number and characteristics of the articles, and assessing the quality of these articles. Methods The study assessed the state of health economics and pharmacoeconomics research in Russia. We conducted a literature search to identify health economics articles pertaining to Russia. Each article in the final sample was scored by two reviewers independently using the data‐collection form designed for the study. Key findings In total, 16 studies investigating a wide variety of diseases were included in the study. These articles were published in 15 different journals all based outside of Russia between 1994 and 2009. On average, each article was written by seven authors. Most first authors had medical/clinical training and resided in the USA (n = 8) at the time of publication of the study. Based on a scale of 1–10, with 10 indicating the highest quality, the mean quality score for all studies was 8.09 (SD = 1.29) and 25% of the articles were of fair quality (score 5–7). The quality of articles was statistically significantly related (P < 0.05) to the primary health intervention (pharmaceuticals > non‐pharmaceuticals) and primary training of the first author (medical > non‐medical). Conclusions The conduct of health economics and pharmacoeconomics research in Russia in the English language is limited and, on average, the published articles were of good quality. However, about one‐quarter of published articles were of fair quality. More health economics research in English is warranted in Russia.

An empirical analysis of Unit costs of public hospitals in Jordan

“…Consequently, immense efforts were made to validate each estimate reported empirically in this study matrices through triangulation and expert elicitation. Nevertheless, these challenges faced with data collection are in line with challenges reported previously highlighting similar barriers exist to economic research in health across countries (33)(34)(35).…”

A Systematic Review on the Extent and Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Publications for China

“…In this study, the characteristics and quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in China that were available in English were summarized and presented. Similar to the articles that reviewed published studies from Russia (n ¼ 16) [9], India (n ¼ 29) [8], and Zimbabwe (n ¼ 26) [7], our study had a low number of published full pharmacoeconomic studies (n ¼ 20). This number is lower than the number of reviews from other Asian countries such as Korea (n ¼ 45) [13] and Thailand (n ¼ 41) [14], although it is acknowledged that we used stricter inclusion criteria.…”

“…A data collection form similar to the one developed by Gavaza et al [7], which has been used in several previous studies [8][9][10], was used to collect general and economic information. General information included the total number of authors for the study, country of residence of the primary author, primary training of first author, year of publication of the study, journal in which the study was published, and type of publication.…”

Priority-Setting Institutions in Health: Recommendations from a Center for Global Development Working Group

“…First, evidence from Asia, Latin America, and Africa reveals a severe shortage of local technical and analytical research capacities for HTA compared with the capacities of high-income countries where HTA has long been used in policy decision making [120][121][122]. First, evidence from Asia, Latin America, and Africa reveals a severe shortage of local technical and analytical research capacities for HTA compared with the capacities of high-income countries where HTA has long been used in policy decision making [120][121][122].…”