Background: Medication-related harm, including adverse drug events (ADEs) and medication errors, represents a significant iatrogenic burden in clinical care. Digital health technology (DHT) interventions can significantly enhance medication safety outcomes. Although the clinical effectiveness of DHT for medication safety has been relatively well studied, much less is known about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the economic impact of DHT interventions on medication safety and examine methodological challenges to inform future research directions. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across 3 major electronic databases (ie, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost). The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this systematic review. Two independent investigators conducted a full-text review after screening preliminary titles and abstracts. We adopted recommendations from the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine for data extraction. A narrative analysis was conducted to synthesize clinical and economic outcomes. The quality of reporting for the included studies was assessed using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines. Results: We included 13 studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness (n=9, 69.2%), cost-benefit (n=3, 23.1%), and cost-utility (n=1, 7.7%) of DHT for medication safety. Of the included studies, more than half (n=7, 53.9%) evaluated a clinical decision support system (CDSS)/computerized provider order entry (CPOE), 4 (30.8%) examined automated medication-dispensing systems, and 2 (15.4%) focused on pharmacist-led outreach programs targeting health care professionals. In 12 (92.3% ) studies, DHT was either cost-effective or cost beneficial compared to standard care. On average, DHT interventions reduced ADEs by 37.12% (range 8.2%-66.5%) and medication errors by 54.38% (range 24%-83%). The key drivers of cost-effectiveness included reductions in outcomes, the proportion of errors resulting in ADEs, and implementation costs. Despite a significant upfront cost, DHT showed a return on investment within 3-4.25 years due to lower cost related with ADE treatment and improved workflow efficiency. In terms of reporting quality, the studies were classified as good (n=10, 76.9%) and moderate (n=3, 23.1%). Key methodological challenges included short follow-up periods, the absence of alert compliance tracking, the lack of ADE and error severity categorization, and omission of indirect costs. Conclusions: DHT interventions are economically viable to improve medication safety, with a substantial reduction in ADEs and medication errors. Future studies should prioritize incorporating alert compliance tracking, ADE and error severity classification, and evaluation of indirect costs, thereby increasing clinical benefits and economic viability.

Using a panel of 28 European Union countries for the period 2003–2014, the authors provide empirical evidence for the relationship between innovation, technological specialization, and income inequality. The results of the fixed effect panel regressions show two important findings. Firstly, the positive link was found between innovation, as measured by patenting activities, and income inequality as measured by Gini index and the top 10% income shares of the richest. Secondly, the authors also found the positive correlation between technological specialization, as measured by the Coefficient of Variances (CV) of Revealed Technological Advantage Index, and income inequality. Overall, the study enriches the previous literature suggesting that innovation may increase the gap of income distribution through the mechanism of Skill-Biased Technical Change (SBTC) and the Schumpeterian view of entrepreneurial rent. More importantly, this study is the first which found that not only the level of innovation does matter to the income distribution, but also how the innovation activities are specialized or diversified. Concentrating the activities into few narrow sectors (i.e., increase technological specialization) may also lead to the increase of income inequality.

Immunization is one of the most cost-effective interventions in global health and has a crucial role in achieving 14 of the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). The issue of sustainable financing for new vaccines is particularly pertinent as Indonesia transitions away from extensive Gavi support towards a self-financing immunization system. As the current immunization system transitions, practical solutions must be found and applied to provide more flexibility in the budget for financing immunizations without sacrificing the current healthcare system’s needs. Despite the fact that economic evaluation studies are essential as an initial step to ensure financial readiness, the lack of reliable data is the first barrier to Indonesia’s journey toward a self-financing immunization system. To overcome this problem, standardization of data collection strategies and methodologies are required. In particular, Indonesia may have to explore other options to increase revenue for its immunization system, such as through general revenue from the central government, a sector-wide approach to financing, and a national trust fund. To deal with the tight immunization budget and its consequences, Indonesia also has to restructure its immunization system, which can be implemented through province block grants, insurance mandate and subsidy. Taking the potential of a COVID-19 vaccine into account, the Indonesian government should consider a number of costs and issues beyond the development and procurement of vaccines. The costs of delivering vaccines to the remote parts of Indonesia, implementing the necessary infrastructure, and modifying vaccine delivery are also important in this time of transition. These constraints must be addressed in the new self-financing system and other public health efforts must be increased to decrease the burden of infectious disease as Indonesia develops a stronger immunization system.

Viscosity, also known as thickness, is the measure of a fluid's resistance to the stress it experiences, caused by cohesive forces between fluid particles. Surface tension is the force or downward pull caused by unbalanced attractive forces at the liquid interface, leading to the contraction of the liquid surface. Numerous studies have been conducted, particularly on determining the relationship between these two phenomena. However, very few studies are associated with fractional differential equations. This paper presents research results based on empirical data obtained from laboratory testing on viscosity and surface tension and explores their interrelationship. Through scatter plot data and regression of logarithmic functions, the obtained function is claimed as a solution to a first-order linear differential equation, with the graph of its solution matching the actual data. Subsequently, this differential equation will be generalized into a fractional differential equation with guaranteed existence and uniqueness of solutions. The method used to find solutions is the Adomian-Laplace Decomposition, and the result is that the graph of the solution function coincides with the graph of the exact solution. This indicates that the relationship between viscosity and surface tension can be described using a solution derived from a fractional differential equation model.

The paper is about a socioeconomics and sociology of middle classes in a theoretical discussion and empirically focussing at “middle class” segments of different European societies for the time period between 2003 and 2014. The argumentation is strongly embedded to Schumpeterian thought of evolutionary economics but it is tried to link discussion about “creative destruction” to digitalization and the evolution of stratified societies in Europe on international comparison. The paper attempts to question assumptions of growing inequality theoretically and empirically by referring to Collins’ thesis of an increased de-middledization. We argue that the ability of ICT innovations (i.e. digitalization) to perform specialized, routine, and predicted tasks better than human allows them to supress middle skilled labor, affect to the polarization of jobs, and finally lead to de-middledization.