SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 29 Sayı: 1

SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH IN HEALTHCARE

SAĞLIK ALANINDA YAPILAN MALİYET ETKİLİLİK ÇALIŞMALARININ SCİENTOMETRİK ANALİZİ

Gamze Kutlu Örün(YOZGAT BOZOK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9852-4029
Pınar Nur Dalgıç(BOZOK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0002-0534-6767
Pages
21–38
Publication Date
2026-03-17
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that scientific productivity related to cost-effectiveness analyses has shown a steady increase over the years, reaching its peak in 2021.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in the field of health services through a scientometric approach, evaluating scientific productivity, citation relationships, and collaboration networks in this area.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using the Web of Science database, a total of 11,487 research articles published between 1980 and 2024 were analysed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that scientific productivity related to cost-effectiveness analyses has shown a steady increase over the years, reaching its peak in 2021.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Scientometrik analiz · maliyet-etkililik · sağlık ekonomisi.

Abstract

This study examines cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in the field of health services through a scientometric approach, evaluating scientific productivity, citation relationships, and collaboration networks in this area. Using the Web of Science database, a total of 11,487 research articles published between 1980 and 2024 were analysed. Within the scope of the scientometric analysis, publication trends over the years, the most influential authors, the most productive institutions, and the top funding organizations were identified. The findings reveal that scientific productivity related to cost-effectiveness analyses has shown a steady increase over the years, reaching its peak in 2021. The results indicate that the United States and the United Kingdom are the leading countries in terms of publication output, while institutions such as the University of London, Stanford University, and the University of Oxford demonstrate the highest levels of research productivity. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stands out as the top funding body, contributing to scientific research with 1,235 grants and providing strategic support for health studies. In addition, journals such as “Value in Health” and “JAMA” were identified as the most influential publication outlets in this field. The citation burst analysis revealed that certain academic studies generated a strong short-term impact, shaping the scientific orientation of the field. For example, the study by Sanders G.D. (2016) achieved the highest citation burst strength (162.2) between 2018 and 2021. Overall, the findings contribute to guiding future research in health economics and highlight that cost-effectiveness analyses serve as a critical tool for the development of health policies. In this context, future interdisciplinary studies are expected to make significant contributions to enhancing the efficiency and sustainability of health systems.

Özet

Bu çalışma, sağlık hizmetleri alanında gerçekleştirilen maliyet-etkililik analizlerini scientometrik bir yaklaşımla inceleyerek, bu alandaki bilimsel üretim, atıf ilişkileri ve iş birliği ağlarını değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Web of Science veri tabanı kullanılarak 1980-2024 yılları arasında yayımlanmış 11.487 araştırma makalesi analiz edilmiştir. Scientometrik analiz kapsamında, yıllara göre yayın eğilimleri, en etkili yazarlar, en fazla yayın yapan kurumlar ve en çok fon sağlayan kuruluşlar belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, maliyet-etkililik analizlerine yönelik bilimsel üretkenliğin yıllar içinde istikrarlı bir artış gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Özellikle 2021 yılında bu alandaki çalışmaların zirveye ulaştığı tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, ABD ve Birleşik Krallık’ın maliyet-etkililik analizleri alanında en fazla yayın yapan ülkeler olduğunu, Londra Üniversitesi, Stanford Üniversitesi ve Oxford Üniversitesi gibi kurumların ise en yüksek bilimsel üretkenliğe sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. ABD Sağlık ve İnsan Hizmetleri Bakanlığı 1.235 fon ile bilimsel araştırmalara en büyük katkıyı sağlayan kurum olarak öne çıkmakta ve sağlık araştırmalarına stratejik destek sunmaktadır. Ayrıca “Value in Health” ve “JAMA” gibi dergilerin bu alandaki en etkili yayın organları olduğu belirlenmiştir. Atıf patlamaları analizi, belirli akademik çalışmaların kısa sürede yoğun etki yarattığını ve alanın bilimsel yönelimlerini şekillendirdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Örneğin; Sanders GD, 2016 çalışması 2018–2021 yılları arasında 162.2 patlama gücü ile en yüksek etkiyi yaratmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, sağlık ekonomisi alanındaki araştırmaların yönlendirilmesine katkı sağlarken, maliyet-etkililik analizlerinin sağlık politikalarının geliştirilmesinde kritik bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda, gelecekte yapılacak disiplinler arası çalışmalar, sağlık sistemlerinin daha verimli ve sürdürülebilir hale gelmesine önemli ölçüde katkıda bulunacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Örün, G. K., Dalgıç, P. N. (2026). SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH IN HEALTHCARE. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 1, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.61859/hacettepesid.1649455

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. ABD Sağlık ve İnsan Hizmetleri Bakanlığı. (2024). TAGGS: Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System. https://taggs.hhs.gov/
  2. Ahonen, J. E., Rissanen, E., Sipilä, R., Komulainen, J., & Kankaanpää, E. (2024). A novel way to integrate economic information into clinical practice guidelines. BMC health services research, 24(1), 1415. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11891-3.
  3. Bao, S. Y., Liu, L., Li, F. M., Yang, Y., Wei, Y., Shao, H., Ming, J., Yan, J. T., & Chen, Y. Y. (2024). A systematic review on reporting quality of economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs in China national reimbursement drug list. BMC health services research, 24(1), 562. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11001-3.
  4. Barbu L. (2023). Global trends in the scientific research of the health economics: a bibliometric analysis from 1975 to 2022. Health economics review, 13(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-023-00446-7.
  5. Behzadifar, M., Behzadifar, M., Saran, M., Shahabi, S., Bakhtiari, A., Azari, S., & Bragazzi, N. L. (2023). The role of Iran's context for the development of health technology assessment: challenges and solutions. Health economics review, 13(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-023-00438-7.
  6. Berber, İ. C., Elipek, E., & Yiğit, A. (2019). Sağlık teknolojisi değerlendirme kapsamındaki maliyet etkililik çalışmalarının bibliyometrik analizi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (34), 163-180.
  7. Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 179–255.
  8. Brunner, N., & Bruggmann, P. (2021). Trends of the Global Hepatitis C Disease Burden: Strategies to Achieve Elimination. Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi, 54(4), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.21.151.
  9. Brzdęk, M., Zarębska-Michaluk, D., Rzymski, P., Lorenc, B., Janocha-Litwin, J., Berak, H., Tomasiewicz, K., Sitko, M., Mazur, W., Janczewska, E., Dybowska, D., Klapaczyński, J., Parfieniuk-Kowerda, A., Jaroszewicz, J., Piekarska, A., &
  10. Flisiak, R. (2025). Response to therapy with direct antiviral drugs in HCV-infected patients with diabetes. Scientific reports, 15(1), 20936. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06290-5.
  11. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317.
  12. Chen, C. (2020). A glimpse of the first eight months of the COVID-19 literature on Microsoft Academic Graph: Themes, citation contexts, and uncertainties. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 5, 607286. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.607286
  13. Chen, C., Ibekwe‐SanJuan, F., & Hou, J. (2010). The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple‐perspective cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1386-1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21309.
  14. Çelik, Y., & Çakmak, M. A. (2024). A critique and bibliometric analysis of the studies on health system effectiveness. Journal of Health Systems and Policies, 6(1), 47-59.
  15. Daradkeh, M., Abualigah, L., Atalla, S., & Mansoor, W. (2022). Scientometric analysis and classification of research using convolutional neural networks: A case study in data science and analytics. Electronics, 11(13), 2066. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11132066
  16. Dewar D. M. (2010). Essentials of Health Economics. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Canada.
  17. dos Santos Silva, E. K., Cruz, J. A. W., da Cunha, M. A. V. C., de Moraes, T. P., Marques, S., & da Silva, E. D. (2021). Cost-effectiveness in health: consolidated research and contemporary challenges. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 254.
  18. Drummond, M. F., Aguiar-Ibanez, R., & Nixon, J. (2006). Economic evaluation. Singapore Medical Journal, 47(6), 456–462.
  19. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford university press.
  20. Eddama, O., & Coast, J. (2008). A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 86(2-3), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.11.010.
  21. Ehlers, L. H., Lamotte, M., Monteiro, S., Sandgaard, S., Holmgaard, P., Frary, E. C., & Ejskjaer, N. (2021). The Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin Versus Liraglutide Treatment in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Established Cardiovascular Disease. Diabetes therapy: research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders, 12(5), 1523–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-021-01040-y.
  22. Gentili, A., Failla, G., Melnyk, A., Puleo, V., Tanna, G. L. D., Ricciardi, W., & Cascini, F. (2022). The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions: A systematic review of the literature. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 787135. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.787135.
  23. Gao, J., Wu, X., Luo, X., & Guan, S. (2021). Scientometric analysis of safety sign research: 1990–2019. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 273. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010273
  24. Heggie, R., Boyd, K., Kamaruzaman, H., & Wu, O. (2024). What methods are currently available for incorporating implementation considerations within the economic evaluation of health technologies? A scoping review. Health research policy and systems, 22(1), 134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01220-9.
  25. Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Augustovski, F., de Bekker-Grob, E., Briggs, A. H., Carswell, C.,. & Staniszewska, S. (2022). Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. MDM Policy & Practice, 7(1), 23814683211061097.
  26. Izadi, R., Hatam, N., Baberi, F., Yousefzadeh, S., & Jafari, A. (2023). Economic evaluation of strategies against coronavirus: a systematic review. Health economics review, 13(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-023-00430-1.
  27. Kelly, J. T., Law, L., De Guzman, K. R., Hickman, I. J., Mayr, H. L., Campbell, K. L., Snoswell, C. L., & Erku, D. (2023). Cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nutrition reviews, 81(12), 1599–1611. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuad032.
  28. Kim, D. D., Wilkinson, C. L., Pope, E. F., Chambers, J. D., Cohen, J. T., & Neumann, P. J. (2017). The influence of time horizon on results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 17(6), 615-623. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2017.1331432.
  29. Knapp, M. (2015). The cost-effectiveness challenge: is it worth it? Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, 7, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-015-0095-4.
  30. Lathe, J., Silverwood, R. J., Hughes, A. D., & Patalay, P. (2024). Examining how well economic evaluations capture the value of mental health. The lancet. Psychiatry, 11(3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00436-4
  31. Liakata, M., Saha, S., Dobnik, S., Batchelor, C., & Rebholz-Schuhmann, D. (2012). Automatic recognition of conceptualization zones in scientific articles and two life science applications. Bioinformatics, 28(7), 991–1000. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts071.
  32. Liu, S., Zhao, Q., Li, W., Zhao, X., & Li, K. (2021). The Cost-Effectiveness of Pulmonary Rehabilitation for COPD in Different Settings: A Systematic Review. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00613-5.
  33. Liu, Y., Bo, Z., Liu, D., Diao, S., Yang, C., Li, H., Zeng, L., Yu, Q., & Zhang, L. (2022). Trends and frontiers of research on pharmacoeconomics from 2012-2021: a scientometric analysis. Annals of translational medicine, 10(6), 327. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-1050
  34. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2175–2188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2820-9
  35. Meltzer, D. O., Basu, A., & Sculpher, M. J. (2016). Theoretical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Cost-Effectiveness ın Health and Medicine, 2, 496.
  36. Morris, S. A., & Van der Veer Martens, B. (2008). Mapping research specialties. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 213–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2008.1440420113.
  37. Mosadeghrad, A. M., Jaafaripooyan, E., & Zamandi, M. (2022). Economic Evaluation of Health Interventions: A Critical Review. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 51(10), 2159–2170. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v51i10.10975.
  38. Okoroiwu, K. L., Okoroiwu, H. U., Ude, L. O., Ezuma, C. O., & Omeje, E. I. (2024). Global bibliometric analysis of cost effectiveness analysis in healthcare research from 2013 to 2023. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation: C/E, 22(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00576-7.
  39. Polašek, O. (2021). Health economics agenda in the 21st century-Analysis of research publication trends in health economics from 2000 to 2020. Journal of Global Health Economics and Policy, 1:e2021001. https://doi.org/10.52872/001c.24316.
  40. Rombey, T., Eckhardt, H., Kiselev, J., Silzle, J., Mathes, T., & Quentin, W. (2023). Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations. BMC Medicine, 21(1), 265. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02977-6.
  41. Shambushankar, A. K., Jose, J., Gnanasekaran, S., & Kaur, G. (2025). Cost-Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation Compared to Traditional In-Person Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus, 17(2), e79028. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.79028.
  42. Silke, F., Earl, L., Hsu, J., Janko, M. M., Joffe, J., Memetova, A., Michael, D., Zheng, P., Aravkin, A., Murray, C. J. L., & Weaver, M. R. (2024). Cost-effectiveness of interventions for HIV/AIDS, malaria, syphilis, and tuberculosis in 128 countries: a meta-regression analysis. The Lancet. Global health, 12(7), e1159–e1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00181-5.
  43. Stanic, T., Saygin Avsar, T., & Gomes, M. (2023). Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions for Children and Adolescents: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e45958. https://doi.org/10.2196/45958.
  44. Tchouaket, E. N., El-Mousawi, F., Robins, S., Kruglova, K., Séguin, C., Kilpatrick, K., Jubinville, M., Leroux, S., Beogo, I., & Sia, D. (2024). A systematic review of economic evaluation of healthcare associated infection prevention and control interventions in long term care facilities. Health Economics Review, 14(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-024-00582-8.
  45. Thomas, R., & Chalkidou, K. (2016). Cost–effectiveness analysis. In J. Cylus, I. Papanicolas, & P. C. Smith (Eds.), Health system efficiency: How to make measurement matter for policy and management (Health Policy Series, No. 46). Copenhagen, Denmark: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.
  46. Trowman, R., Migliore, A., & Ollendorf, D. A. (2023). The value and impact of health technology assessment: discussions and recommendations from the 2023 Health Technology Assessment International Global Policy Forum. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 39(1), e75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462323002763.
  47. Walker, D. G., Hutubessy, R., & Beutels, P. (2010). WHO Guide for standardisation of economic evaluations of immunization programmes. Vaccine, 28(11), 2356-2359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.06.035.
  48. Wilkinson, T., Wang, M., Friedman, J., Gaye, Y. E., & Görgens, M. (2024). Knowing when digital adds value to health: a framework for the economic evaluation of digital health interventions. Oxford Open Digital Health, 2(Suppl 2), ii75–ii86. https://doi.org/10.1093/oodh/oqae028.
  49. Woods, B., Palacios, A., & Sculpher, M. (2025). A Framework for Using Cost-effectiveness Analysis to Support Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions for New Pharmaceuticals in a Context of Evolving Treatments, Prices, and Evidence. PharmacoEconomics, 43(4), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01450-3.
  50. Wouterse, B., Van Baal, P., Versteegh, M., & Brouwer, W. (2023). The value of health in a cost-effectiveness analysis: Theory versus practice. PharmacoEconomics, 41(6), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-023-01265-8.
  51. Zhang, J., Jiang, W., & Urdaneta, F. (2021). Economic analysis of the use of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the surgical setting. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 10(10), 831–844. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2021-0068.
  52. Zwack, C. C., Haghani, M., & de Bekker-Grob, E. W. (2024). Research trends in contemporary health economics: a scientometric analysis on collective content of specialty journals. Health Economics Review, 14(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-023-00471-6.
  53. Ehlers, L. H., Lamotte, M., Monteiro, S., Sandgaard, S., Holmgaard, P., Frary, E. C., & Ejskjaer, N. (2021). The Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin Versus Liraglutide Treatment in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Established Cardiovascular Disease. Diabetes therapy: research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders, 12(5), 1523–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-021-01040-y.
  54. Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Augustovski, F., de Bekker-Grob, E., Briggs, A. H., Carswell, C.,. & Staniszewska, S. (2022). Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. MDM Policy & Practice, 7(1), 23814683211061097.