Skip to main content
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Indirect costs associated with skin infectious disease in children: a systematic review

This article has been updated



There are limited data in the literature on the indirect costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) in the pediatric population. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the indirect costs associated with SSTIs in children.


The search was conducted in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science up to January 2020. Thirteen search strategies were designed combining MeSH terms and free terms. SSTIs were defined as bacterial or viral infections, dermatomycoses, and parasitic infestations. Only primary studies were included. All analyzed costs were converted to 2020 Euros.


Thirteen of the identified publications presented indirect costs of SSTIs in children and were conducted in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, Taiwan, and the USA. Nine studies described indirect costs associated with infection of Varicella-zoster virus: lost workdays by outpatient caregivers ranged from 0.27 to 7.8, and up to 6.14 if caring for inpatients; total productivity losses ranged from €1.16 to €257.46 per patient. Three studies reported indirect costs associated with acute bacterial SSTIs (community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in children: total productivity losses ranged from €1,814.39 to €8,224.06 per patient, based on impetigo, cellulitis, and folliculitis. One study of parasitic infestations (Pediculus humanus capitis) reported total indirect costs per patient of €68.57 (formal care) plus €21.41 due to time lost by parents in purchasing treatment.


The economic burden of SSTIs is highly relevant but underestimated due to the lack of studies reporting indirect costs. Further cost studies will allow a better understanding of the magnitude of the financial burden of the disease.

Peer Review reports


The global impact of skin diseases, both social and economic, is significant, with 4.86 billion incident cases of skin and subcutaneous diseases estimated worldwide in 2019 [1].

Though taxonomies may vary, skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) as a category include a broad set of pathological conditions that involve the skin and its underlying structure and range from uncomplicated superficial infections to more severe infections that extend to the subcutaneous tissue, fascia, or muscle [2, 3]. Skin infections are a frequent occurrence in the pediatric population and are generally more severe than in adolescents and adults, a difference that is due in large part to the functional impairment of immune defenses during the first period of life, as evidenced in both the innate and adaptive response [4].

Many SSTIs are caused by bacteria and are referred to as acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). These infections can pose a challenge for the medical community, particularly with the increase in antimicrobial resistance, and are associated with high direct and indirect costs to both the healthcare system and society. Antimicrobial resistance is a growing concern and the increase in the incidence of infections caused by bacteria that have developed resistance to previously effective antimicrobials, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), has led to higher rates of complications, hospitalizations and, occasionally even death [5, 6]. The prevalence of community-acquired MRSA (CA-MRSA), meaning MRSA colonization and infection that is not associated with a healthcare setting, among children with no identified risk factors is also on the rise and is becoming a public health problem [7, 8].

Other SSTIs are caused by viruses, most notably the Varicella-zoster virus (VZV), which is the causal agent of chickenpox and shingles [9]. Despite the ubiquity of this virus, there is still much to learn about the epidemiology and burden of varicella, particularly in Europe, given that the majority of studies took place in a hospital setting. Therefore, although there has been an increase in the data on non-hospitalized patients in recent years, the data are still limited or underestimated [10].

Parasitic infestations are common among children and adolescents. The head louse (Pediculus humanus capitis) is an obligate human ectoparasite that causes head lice infestation (pediculosis capitis) and is estimated to affect more than 100 million people worldwide every year [11]. The infestation, which affects the hair and scalp [12], is not associated with systemic disease; however, it can lead to anxiety, embarrassment, work and/or school absenteeism, productivity loss and significant medical costs [13,14,15].

SSTIs impose a burden on patients, their families and society that is multidimensional: the impact is psychological, social and financial. The negative impact of SSTIs may be greater for children due to their fragility and resource needs and their quality of life (QoL) can be deeply affected by these infections. Among the indirect costs associated with childhood diseases are time taken off from work by parents or other caregivers when a child must stay home from school due to illness, time spent traveling to and from hospitals and other healthcare facilities, and the time spent at the healthcare facility while the child receives treatment. Quantifying the burden for a child affected by the SSTI, however, is difficult and has not been estimated. It would need to account, for example, for lost activity, the inability to perform certain tasks, and the cost of missed educational opportunities due to school absenteeism.

There are many people worldwide who are vulnerable to the economic consequences of illness, the costs of which can be either direct or indirect. The indirect cost of disease is an important factor and should be taken into account when measuring the additional impact of diseases beyond the traditional direct medical costs. Though these indirect costs are difficult to quantify due to the lack of quality data, they could represent a significant fraction of the total cost associated with many diseases. Indirect costs are the loss of earnings resulting from an adverse health outcome. Decreased productivity can arise from three situations: absence from paid work (absenteeism), including sick leave, early retirement, premature death and reduced employment (or unemployment); reduced productivity during paid work (presenteeism); and changes in unpaid work [16]. In the case of pediatric patients, productivity loss is mainly incurred by their caregivers. Each category of indirect costs can be calculated using either the human capital approach or the friction cost approach. The human capital approach converts the gross income that will not be obtained in the future due to disease into real costs from a social perspective. The friction cost approach takes into account productivity losses until a substitute is hired to replace the sick worker [16].

There are limited data in the literature on the indirect costs associated with SSTIs in the pediatric population. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic literature review to collect and summarize current data on the indirect costs associated with SSTIs in children worldwide.


We carried out a systematic review to retrieve studies reporting the indirect costs of SSTIs in the pediatric population. This study followed the guidelines for conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations studies published by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination – CRD [17] and the research protocol was registered in Open Science Framework ( The methods and findings of this systematic review were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [18]. The PRISMA checklist is available in Online Resource 1.

A PICO approach, the details of which are available in our study protocol, was used to formulate the following research question: What is the estimation of indirect costs in managing SSTIs in the pediatric population aged 1 to 12 years? [19]. The databases searched were PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science (WoS) (up to January 2020). To identify relevant studies, we designed search algorithms that combined controlled terms from each database with free terms, such as: “skin diseases, infectious”, “child”, “cost of illness”, “soft tissue infections”, “indirect costs”, “staphylococcal skin infections”, and “human”. A complete description of the search strategies can be found in Online Resource 2. In addition, the references cited in the literature reviews and studies retrieved were also checked to identify other relevant studies not found using our search strategy. No date, language or geographic limits were applied.

We included primary studies reporting health economic analyses of the impact of SSTIs (defined as bacterial or viral infections, dermatomycoses and parasitic infestations) in the pediatric population from 1 to 12 years of age. Studies with a broader age range were included so long as there was overlap with our specified age range (1 to 12). We included studies that measured indirect costs, defined as lost earnings and productivity of both patients and their informal caregivers, and excluded studies that reported only direct costs as well as those focused on the diagnosis, treatment, epidemiology, or non-economic aspects of SSTIs. The complete list of reasons for the exclusion of articles is included in Fig. 1.

The references identified from the initial search were screened using the criteria described above to exclude irrelevant studies based on title and abstract. The full texts of the remaining articles were independently reviewed by two researchers, following the selection criteria described earlier, and disagreements regarding inclusion or exclusion of studies were resolved by consensus.

For each study we carried out a quality appraisal using an adapted version of a previously developed critical appraisal checklist for cost-of-illness (COI) studies [20]. Each potentially eligible study was evaluated for relevance, methodological robustness, and reporting. The results of the quality appraisal are available in Online Resource 3. We used a predefined data extraction form to collect the relevant data from the selected studies. One reviewer evaluated the studies and extracted the data, while another reviewer checked the accuracy and completeness. The following data were extracted from each study: year and journal of publication, first author, country of the study, study design, skin disease, pathogen, sample size, age, and data on indirect cost (workdays lost by caregivers, school days lost, total productivity losses, annual indirect cost, and formal childcare costs). The primary outcome was any available data on indirect costs related to SSTIs in children. Extracted costs were converted to 2020 Euros by first inflating the original currency and then converting it to Euros using the web-based tool provided by the Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CCEMG-EPPI) [21] along with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) purchasing power parity index and the inflation index of Euro area countries [22]. For non-economic studies, the risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) scale to assess the risk of bias in observational studies [23] and for model-based economic evaluations, the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) checklist [24] was used (for details, see Online Resource 4 and Online Resource 5, respectively). We conducted a qualitative narrative synthesis, and the study characteristics were summarized in figures and summary tables.


The search yielded 503 unique references, of which 466 were excluded through title-and-abstract screening; 37 articles were reviewed in full text. Twenty-nine articles were excluded based on full-text evaluation, and 5 articles identified from a review of references were added, bringing the final total to 13 studies. The complete eligibility process is described in a PRISMA flow chart in Fig. 1. Five of the identified studies were economic evaluations [8, 14, 25,26,27], 1 was an economic analysis in the context of a head-to-head randomized clinical trial [28] and 7 were retrospective chart/case reviews [6, 10, 28,29,30,31,32], 3 of which were multicenter [30, 32, 33]. We assessed the risk of bias for all studies. Most had a moderate risk of bias (between 57.1 and 88.2% of criteria fulfilled; see Online Resources 4 and 5).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart for the global search with regional-level outcomes. The search strategies returned 1432 records, 929 of which were duplicates. After screening the titles and abstracts of the remaining 503 references, a further 466 were excluded. The full texts of 37 articles were assessed for eligibility, of which 13 were found eligible and included in the analysis. Of the full-text articles assessed, 29 were excluded for the following reasons: No children between 1 and 12 years (3); No cost study as objective (4); Cost study but not indirect costs (9); No results by age group (7); No SSTIs as primary disease (3); and Review (3)

The studies were carried out in 9 different countries and published between 1992 and 2018. Five were conducted in the United States [6, 8, 14, 28, 31] and 1 study was published from each of the following countries: Argentina [30], Australia [29], Brazil [26], Hungary [33], New Zealand [27], Poland [32], Spain [10], and Taiwan [25]. The key characteristics of the studies are summarized in Table 1 and detailed indirect costs and variables are summarized in Table 2. In most of the studies (12 studies, 92%), indirect costs accounting for productivity losses were estimated using the human capital approach. No information regarding the method of indirect cost calculation was reported for the remaining study [6]. No studies of dermatomycoses that fulfilled inclusion criteria were retrieved for full-text analysis.

Table 1 Summary of primary studies on indirect costs of SSTIs in the pediatric population
Table 2 Indirect costs of SSTI (Euroa)

Varicella-zoster virus

Of the studies in this review, the majority were on chickenpox, with a total of 9 studies reporting indirect costs associated with VZV infection [10, 25,26,27, 29,30,31,32,33]. The number of reported workdays missed ranged from 0.27 to 7.8 days for caregivers of outpatients, and up to 6.14 days for those caring for inpatients. For non-complicated infection, the cost of lost productivity ranged from €1.16 (Brazil) [26] to €257.46 (United States) [31]. In the case of carers of inpatients, the costs of productivity loss ranged from €20.61 (Brazil) [26] to €251.71 (Poland) [32]. Two studies reported that productivity loss was higher for working mothers than fathers. Ferson et al. and Lieu et al. [29, 31] reported a total loss of 2.5 days of work for mothers and 0.42–0.8 days for fathers, with a total cost of productivity loss ranging from €234.34 to €257.46 for mothers and from €47.83 to €174.07 for fathers.

Three studies reported the estimated total annual productivity loss costs due to SSTIs at the national level, being €34,623,835.89 in Poland [32], €17,382,154.02 in Argentina [30], and €4,308,232.09 in Hungary [33]. These estimates were based on the annual number of cases of VZV infection in 2015 in the 3 countries (Table 1). In addition, 3 studies estimated the average costs of childcare by professional caregivers per affected child at €11.95 (Spain) [10], €19.61 (Australia) [29] and €52.12 (United States) [31].

Two cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programs against VZV estimated indirect cost saving due to vaccination. Hsu et al. reported an estimated reduction of 98.9% in indirect costs with the implementation of vaccination programs (from €32.00 million to €0.34 million) [25], while in Schuffham et al. the mean indirect cost savings associated with vaccination were €70.60 per child [27].

Bacterial SSTIs

Three studies from the United States reported indirect costs associated with ABSSSI in children [6, 8, 28]. School days lost due to impetigo ranged from 1.2 to 6.5 days per child. Rice et al. commented that working parents and school-age children were less likely to change their daily activities when receiving topical antibiotic compared to systemic antibiotic treatment (p < 0.04) [28]. In an economic simulation model, Lee et al. estimated that the lost productivity associated with each CA-MRSA case in children < 15 years old ranged from €1,814.39 to €8,224.06, based on impetigo, cellulitis and folliculitis [8]. In their study, indirect costs represented 75% of the total costs for CA-MRSA infections. One study compared the hospital indirect costs associated with 2 different treatments of subcutaneous abscess: traditional packing technique vs. minimally invasive (MI) abscess drainage. Median workdays lost decreased from 2 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1–2 days) with the packing treatment to 1 day (IQR 1–1.25 days) with the MI treatment (p < 0.001), with a €294.58 reduction in median hospital indirect costs (p < 0.001) per patient and episode [6].


A cost-effectiveness analysis from the United States was reviewed [14]. From the caregivers’ perspective, the study compared 3 head lice treatments commonly used in the United States (permethrin 1%, malathion 0.5% and the lice comb) and assumed a treatment duration of 2 weeks. The study estimated school day loss due to head lice infestation to be 1 day in the second week of the treatment, in case of treatment failure, according to the policy recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics [34]. The total indirect costs per child estimated as the total formal care at home in 1 day was €68.57, plus €21.41 due to time lost by parents in purchasing treatment.


In this systematic review we collected and summarized all the current data on the indirect costs associated with SSTIs in children between 1 and 12 years of age, encompassing 3 highly contagious skin diseases: ABSSSIs, chickenpox and head lice (Table 1). Although some reviews of the economic burden of chickenpox have been published [35,36,37], this is the first systematic review of studies specifically addressing the indirect cost of SSTIs caused by bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens in children. The current review identified studies from various countries (in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Oceania) with diverse healthcare systems and socioeconomic status.

Varicella-zoster virus

Regarding VZV infection, the 9 studies reviewed were conducted in 9 countries with a variety of healthcare systems and standards of care and living, making it difficult to compare or to analyze the underlying reasons for the cost differences among countries. In addition, the indirect costs identified in this review varied considerably due to the difference in components; thus, the indirect costs, defined as the total cost of productivity loss reported for uncomplicated chickenpox, were around €200 in the United States, Australia and Poland [29, 31, 32], around €100 in Hungary, Argentina and New Zealand [27, 33], less than €100 in Spain and Taiwan [10, 25], and as low as €1.16 in Brazil [26]. The number of lost workdays for caregivers was heterogeneous, ranging from 0.27 days in Brazil to 7.8 days in Argentina [26, 30]. Despite this variation, SSTIs can cause a substantial number of lost workdays for the parents of sick children. In addition, 4 studies reported higher indirect costs for the caregivers of patients who required hospitalization compared to patients that were treated at home [26, 27, 32, 33]. Conversely, Giglio et al. reported fewer workdays lost and therefore less productivity loss for inpatients vs. outpatients [30]. This difference arose because the authors considered the time spent in the hospital but not the additional time spent recovering at home. Interestingly, 2 studies reported higher productivity loss for working mothers. These differences were attributable to mothers missing more days of work due to childcare than fathers, in addition to the gender pay gap [29, 31]. However, both studies were published more than 20 years ago and would need to be updated using current information.

The total annual indirect costs were substantially different between Poland, Argentina, and Hungary (€34,623,835.89; €17,382,154.02; and €4,308,232.09, respectively). With a similar incidence of VZV and cost of lost workdays, these differences were mainly due to the differences in the number of VZV cases reported in 2015 in the 3 countries (Table 1) [30, 32, 33].

The introduction of vaccines reduces VZV burden of disease by about 80–85% [38] and has a number of benefits, such as reducing disease-related complications, healthcare costs, and worktime lost. The cost-benefit analyses showed substantial overall savings in indirect costs resulting from reduced worktime loss associated with vaccination [25, 27]. In many countries, VZV vaccination is either not mandatory or is gradually being introduced into the national immunization program, therefore current data on disease burden and vaccine implementation and coverage is limited [37].

Bacterial SSTIs

Although ABSSSI represents a significant economic burden for health systems and individual patients worldwide, we found only 3 studies from the United States that reported the indirect costs of SSTIs produced by bacterial infection in the pediatric population [6, 8, 28].

The article published by Lee et al. [8] was the only study that included productivity loss due to absenteeism and mortality in the estimation of total cost of productivity loss, in this case, due to impetigo, cellulitis and folliculitis produced by CA-MRSA infection. The authors estimated productivity losses associated with children under 15 years to be between €1,814.39 and €8,224.06. In the economic analysis, they found that societal costs, including indirect costs, were 4 to 7 times higher than healthcare medical costs, as the vast majority came from productivity loss (i.e. individuals or caregivers missing work plus lost productivity from infection-related deaths). A non-surviving child represents a greater productivity loss than an adult if we consider that they would be expected to have a whole productive life ahead of them, while an adult has already contributed a part of their productive life. In a systematic review, median childhood impetigo prevalence was estimated at 12.3% (IQR 4.2-19.4%) [39]. In Spain, with nearly 5.9 million children [40], this would represent a total indirect cost ranging from €1,270,073 to €5,756,842 per year due to impetigo.

Another study presented a cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of impetigo with erythromycin or mupirocin. The study concluded that treatment with mupirocin (topical) reduced indirect costs due to a decreased number of school days and workdays lost compared with treatment with erythromycin (oral) [28].

Finally, the indirect costs reported by Wright et al. in the treatment of subcutaneous abscess in children were higher with traditional packing than with MI drainage, because the latter reduced hospital length of stay [6]. However, the study does not present the full methodology used to obtain direct costs, thus it is difficult to interpret their results. Annual recurrence is frequent in patients with SSTI caused by CA-MRSA. The use of mupirocin (MUP) based decolonization is recommended for patients with recurrent SSTI or in settings of ongoing transmission [41]. However, following its widespread use, the emergence of MUP resistance is increasing among MRSA isolates worldwide, and may represent a substantial health burden [42].


Although pediculosis capitis is the most frequent ectoparasitic disease worldwide, and its treatment is costly, indirect costs associated with head lice were found in only 1 cost-effectiveness study, which compared 3 pediculosis capitis treatments [14]. While head lice infestation is not a public health hazard, it merits study because of its increasing incidence and the associated healthcare costs. The cost-effectiveness analysis published by Gur et al., reported that 73% of the total variability of the model was attributed to the number of lost school days and subsequent lost caregiver workdays. The authors emphasized that a head lice policy in schools has an important effect on the cost and effectiveness of the different treatments [14]. Nevertheless, the findings of this study are based on an assumed loss of school days and may not reflect the actual burden of head lice. A 1997 report estimated that approximately 6 to 12 million infestations occur each year in the United States [43], representing between €411.42 million and €822.84 million in indirect costs.

One important limitation of this study is the scarcity of cost-of-illness studies in SSTIs in the pediatric population, and of those that exist, many are based on data from clinical practice dating from 2005 or earlier. This could underestimate the true extent of the disease burden. In addition, the indirect costs included in this systematic review derived from a heterogeneous group of studies with different methodologies. We included studies related to different diseases, which may not therefore be directly comparable. In this regard, the studies included were conducted in different countries in which indirect costs are estimated according to the country-specific features of the labor market, which makes it difficult to directly compare costs across studies. Furthermore, the methodology used in some studies was not clearly described, or the results were presented as aggregated costs, and thus could not be analyzed in detail. Hence, new studies that analyze the cost-of-illness of SSTIs in pediatric patients should be designed and should present results not only as aggregated costs. This would enable the implementation of tailored strategies and policies. Additionally, these studies should include data from as many different SSTIs as possible so they can be evaluated as a whole.

Aside from the scarce data on indirect costs of SSTIs in the pediatric population, the QoL of these patients is also underreported. These skin disorders may cause several disturbances, stigmatization, and psychosocial consequences that affect the lives of both the patients and their families. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to assess to a greater extent the impact of these diseases on the overall QoL in pediatric patients by designing studies evaluating QoL outcome measurements [44, 45]. This burden is especially relevant in children with highly contagious skin diseases, outbreaks and relapses. In addition, the availability of scales measuring QoL in ABSSSIs is not well known and accurate instruments should be developed. Thus, further investigation is needed to obtain a comprehensive picture of the real burden of these diseases in the pediatric population.


In conclusion, there is no doubt that productivity losses attributable to SSTIs in children are extremely important. The economic burden of SSTIs, though highly relevant, is underestimated due to the lack of studies, particularly in bacterial SSTIs. Although many cost-of-illness studies acknowledge the importance of indirect costs and benefits, they are seldom included in economic assessments. New, improved cost studies using a precise, standardized indirect cost estimation methodology will give us a better understanding of the magnitude of the economic disease burden and allow us to determine the efficacy of health policies and develop programs to improve public health.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The research protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (

Change history

  • 25 January 2022

    The Additional file 1 was replaced with a clean version.



Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections




Community-associated (or community-acquired) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus


Campbell and cochrane economics methods group


Confidence interval




Centre for reviews and dissemination


Bias in economic evaluation


Herpes zoster


Interquartile range


International society of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research


Minimally invasive


Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus




Not applicable


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence




Organization for economic cooperation and development


Open science framework


Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis


Quality of life


Skin and soft tissue infections


Traditional packing treatment


Varicella-zoster virus


Web of science


  1. Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi M, Abbasifard M, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1204–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. May AK. Skin and soft tissue infections. Surg Clin North Am. 2009;89(2):403–20, viii.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sartelli M, Guirao X, Hardcastle TC, Kluger Y, Boermeester MA, Raşa K, et al. 2018 WSES/SIS-E consensus conference: recommendations for the management of skin and soft-tissue infections. World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13(1):58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Esposito S, Fumagalli M, Principi N. Immunogenicity, safety and tolerability of vaccinations in premature infants. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2012;11(10):1199–209.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pollack CV Jr, Amin A, Ford WT Jr, Finley R, Kaye KS, Nguyen HH, et al. Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI): practice guidelines for management and care transitions in the emergency department and hospital. J Emerg Med. 2015;48(4):508–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wright TN, Gilligan L, Zhurbich O, Davenport DL, Draus JM Jr. Minimally invasive drainage of subcutaneous abscesses reduces hospital cost and length of stay. South Med J. 2013;106(12):689–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Herold BC, Immergluck LC, Maranan MC, Lauderdale DS, Gaskin RE, Boyle-Vavra S, et al. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in children with no identified predisposing risk. JAMA. 1998;279(8):593–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee BY, Singh A, David MZ, Bartsch SM, Slayton RB, Huang SS, et al. The economic burden of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA). Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;19(6):528–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chahine EB, Sucher AJ. Skin and soft tissue infections. PSAP. 2015;1:1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Díez-Domingo J, Aristegui J, Calbo F, Gonzalez-Hachero J, Moraga F, Peña Guitian J, et al. Epidemiology and economic impact of varicella in immunocompetent children in Spain. A nation-wide study. Vaccine. 2003;21(23):3236–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chosidow O, Giraudeau B, Cottrell J, Izri A, Hofmann R, Mann SG, et al. Oral ivermectin versus malathion lotion for difficult-to-treat head lice. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(10):896–905.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Feldmeier H. Pediculosis capitis: new insights into epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;31(9):2105–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Frankowski BL, Weiner LB, Taras HL, Frankowski BL, McGrath JW, Mears C, et al. Head lice. Pediatrics. 2002;110(3):638–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gur I, Schneeweiss R. Head lice treatments and school policies in the US in an era of emerging resistance: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):725–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hansen RC, O'Haver J. Economic considerations associated with Pediculus humanus capitis infestation. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2004;43(6):523–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Krol M, Brouwer W. How to estimate productivity costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):335–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care: Centre for Reviews and Disseminations. University of York. 2009. Accessed 19 Nov 2021. [internet].

  18. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W-65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Public Health Wales Observatory Evidence Service. Questions to assist with the critical appraisal of a cost of illness/ risk factor analysis Wales: public health Wales. Public Health Wales. 2014. Accessed 19 Nov 2021. [internet].

  21. Shemilt I, Thomas J, Morciano M. A web-based tool for adjusting costs to a specific target currency and price year. Evidence Policy J Rese Debate Pract. 2010;6(1):51–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. OECD. Inflation (CPI) (indicator). 2020, 2020. Accessed on 23 Feb 2020. [internet].

  23. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Appendix 4: Quality assessment for Case series. Accessed 17 Jun 2020. [internet].

  24. Adarkwah CC, van Gils PF, Hiligsmann M, Evers SMAA. Risk of bias in model-based economic evaluations: the ECOBIAS checklist. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(4):513–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hsu HC, Lin RS, Tung TH, Chen TH. Cost-benefit analysis of routine childhood vaccination against chickenpox in Taiwan: decision from different perspectives. Vaccine. 2003;21(25–26):3982–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Valentim J, Sartori AM, de Soarez PC, Amaku M, Azevedo RS, Novaes HM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal childhood vaccination against varicella in Brazil. Vaccine. 2008;26(49):6281–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Scuffham P, Devlin N, Eberhart-Phillips J, Wilson-Salt R. The cost-effectiveness of introducing a varicella vaccine to the New Zealand immunisation schedule. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(6):763–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rice TD, Duggan AK, DeAngelis C. Cost-effectiveness of erythromycin versus mupirocin for the treatment of impetigo in children. Pediatrics. 1992;89(2):210–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ferson M, Shen W, Stark A. Direct and indirect costs of chickenpox in young children. J Paediatr Child Health. 1998;34(1):18–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Giglio N, Monsanto H, Rampakakis E, Yang HK, Kuter BJ, Wolfson LJ. Economic burden of varicella in children 1-12 years of age in Argentina, 2009-2014. J Med Econ. 2018;21(4):416–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lieu TA, Black SB, Rieser N, Ray P, Lewis EM, Shinefield HR. The cost of childhood chickenpox: parents' perspective. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1994;13(3):173–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wysocki J, Malecka I, Stryczynska-Kazubska J, Rampakakis E, Kuter B, Wolfson LJ. Varicella in Poland: economic burden in children 1-12 years of age in Poland, 2010-2015. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):410.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Meszner Z, Molnar Z, Rampakakis E, Yang HK, Kuter BJ, Wolfson LJ. Economic burden of varicella in children 1-12 years of age in Hungary, 2011-2015. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Mumcuoglu KY, Barker SC, Burgess I, Combescot-Lang C, Dalgleish RC, Larsen KS, et al. International guidelines for effective control of head louse infestations. J Drugs Dermatolog JDD. 2007;6(4):409–14.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Panatto D, Bragazzi NL, Rizzitelli E, Bonanni P, Boccalini S, Icardi G, et al. Evaluation of the economic burden of herpes zoster (HZ) infection. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(1):245–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bardach A, Cafferata ML, Klein K, Cormick G, Gibbons L, Ruvinsky S. Incidence and use of resources for chickenpox and herpes zoster in Latin America and the Caribbean--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2012;31(12):1263–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Goh AEN, Choi EH, Chokephaibulkit K, Choudhury J, Kuter B, Lee PI, et al. Burden of varicella in the Asia-Pacific region: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2019;18(5):475–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Heininger U, Seward JF. Varicella. Lancet. 2006;368(9544):1365–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bowen AC, Mahé A, Hay RJ, Andrews RM, Steer AC, Tong SYC, et al. The Global Epidemiology of Impetigo: A Systematic Review of the Population Prevalence of Impetigo and Pyoderma. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0136789-e.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. INE. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Accessed 17 Jun 2020. [internet].

  41. Creech CB, Al-Zubeidi DN, Fritz SA. Prevention of recurrent staphylococcal skin infections. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2015;29(3):429–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Khoshnood S, Heidary M, Asadi A, Soleimani S, Motahar M, Savari M, et al. A review on mechanism of action, resistance, synergism, and clinical implications of mupirocin against Staphylococcus aureus. Biomed Pharmacother. 2019;109:1809–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gratz NG, Organization WH. Human lice: their prevalence, control and resistance to insecticides: a review 1985–1997. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lizano-Díez I, Garcia J, Zsolt I. Impact of acute bacterial skin infections in quality of life: a neglected area. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2020. Value Health. 2020;23:S544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lizano-Díez I, Garcia J, Zsolt I. Quality of life scales in pediatric dermatology: a systematic literature review. Pediatr Dermatol. 2021;38(S1):65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank Alfonsina Trento, Ph.D. and Maria Giovanna Ferrario, Ph.D., medical writers at Medical Statistics Consulting, for their collaboration and assistance with the preparation of this manuscript. We thank Ivan Solà for his valuable methodological advice on this study and for reviewing the manuscript.


This systematic literature review was funded by Ferrer Internacional, S.A.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



ILD designed the study and data collection instruments, collected data, carried out the initial analyses and drafted the initial manuscript. JN collected data, carried out the initial analyses and reviewed the manuscript. IZ coordinated and supervised methodology and investigation and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irene Lizano-Díez.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

ILD, JN and IZ are employees at Ferrer Internacional, S.A.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

: Supplementary Table 1. PRISMA Checklist.

Additional file 2

: Supplementary Table 2. Search strategies.

Additional file 3

: Supplementary Table 3. Result of the quality appraisal.

Additional file 4

: Supplementary Table 4. Risk of bias in observational studies included in the systematic review.

Additional file 5

: Supplementary Table 5. Risk of bias assessment of included model-based economic evaluations (based on the ECOBIAS checklist).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lizano-Díez, I., Naharro, J. & Zsolt, I. Indirect costs associated with skin infectious disease in children: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 21, 1325 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: