Suchergebnisse

Economic evaluation of vaccination is a key tool to inform effective spending on vaccines. However, many evaluations have been criticised for failing to capture features of vaccines which are relevant to decision makers. These include broader societal benefits (such as improved educational achievement, economic growth and political stability), reduced health disparities, medical innovation, reduced hospital beds pressures, greater peace of mind and synergies in economic benefits with non-vaccine interventions. Also, the fiscal implications of vaccination programmes are not always made explicit. Alternative methodological frameworks have been proposed to better capture these benefits. However, any broadening of the methodology for economic evaluation must also involve evaluations of non-vaccine interventions, and hence may not always benefit vaccines given a fixed health-care budget. The scope of an economic evaluation must consider the budget from which vaccines are funded, and the decision-maker's stated aims for that spending to achieve.

Economic evaluation of vaccination is a key tool to inform effective spending on vaccines. However, many evaluations have been criticised for failing to capture features of vaccines which are relevant to decision makers. These include broader societal benefits (such as improved educational achievement, economic growth and political stability), reduced health disparities, medical innovation, reduced hospital beds pressures, greater peace of mind and synergies in economic benefits with non-vaccine interventions. Also, the fiscal implications of vaccination programmes are not always made explicit. Alternative methodological frameworks have been proposed to better capture these benefits. However, any broadening of the methodology for economic evaluation must also involve evaluations of non-vaccine interventions, and hence may not always benefit vaccines given a fixed health-care budget. The scope of an economic evaluation must consider the budget from which vaccines are funded, and the decision-maker's stated aims for that spending to achieve.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease.

Abstract Background The purpose, methods, data sources and assumptions behind the World Health Organization (WHO) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) tool that was developed to assist low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with planning and costing their nationwide human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program are presented. Tanzania is presented as a case study where the WHO C4P tool was used to cost and plan the roll-out of HPV vaccines nationwide as part of the national comprehensive cervical cancer prevention and control strategy. Methods The WHO C4P tool focuses on estimating the incremental costs to the health system of vaccinating adolescent girls through school-, health facility- and/or outreach-based strategies. No costs to the user (school girls, parents or caregivers) are included. Both financial (or costs to the Ministry of Health) and economic costs are estimated. The cost components for service delivery include training, vaccination (health personnel time and transport, stationery for tally sheets and vaccination cards, and so on), social mobilization/IEC (information, education and communication), supervision, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The costs of all the resources used for HPV vaccination are totaled and shown with and without the estimated cost of the vaccine. The total cost is also divided by the number of doses administered and number of fully immunized girls (FIGs) to estimate the cost per dose and cost per FIG. Results Over five years (2011 to 2015), the cost of establishing an HPV vaccine program that delivers three doses of vaccine to girls at schools via phased national introduction (three regions in year 1, ten regions in year 2 and all 26 regions in years 3 to 5) in Tanzania is estimated to be US$9.2 million (excluding vaccine costs) and US$31.5 million (with vaccine) assuming a vaccine price of US$5 (GAVI 2011, formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations). This is equivalent to a financial cost of US$5.77 per FIG, excluding the vaccine cost. The most important costs of service delivery are social mobilization/IEC and service delivery operational costs. Conclusions When countries expand their immunization schedules with new vaccines such as the HPV vaccine, they face initial costs to fund critical pre-introduction activities, as well as incremental system costs to deliver the vaccines on an ongoing basis. In anticipation, governments need to plan ahead for non-vaccine costs so they will be financed adequately. Existing human resources need to be re-allocated or new staff need to be recruited for the program to be implemented successfully in a sustainable and .

Rotavirus and oral cholera vaccines have the potential to reduce diarrhea-related child mortality in low-income settings and are recommended by the World Health Organization. Uptake of vaccination depends on community support, and is based on local priorities. This study investigates local perceptions of acute watery diarrhea in childhood and anticipated vaccine acceptance in two sites in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2010, 360 randomly selected non-affected adults were interviewed by using a semi-structured questionnaire. Witchcraft and breastfeeding were perceived as potential cause of acute watery diarrhea by 51% and 48% of respondents. Despite misperceptions, anticipated vaccine acceptance at no cost was 99%. The strongest predictor of anticipated vaccine acceptance if costs were assumed was the educational level of the respondents. Results suggest that the introduction of vaccines is a local priority and local (mis)perceptions of illness do not compromise vaccine acceptability if the vaccine is affordable.

Abstract Background In regions where access to clean water and the provision of a sanitary infrastructure has not been sustainable, cholera continues to pose an important public health burden. Although oral cholera vaccines (OCV) are effective means to complement classical cholera control efforts, still relatively little is known about their acceptability in targeted communities. Clarification of vaccine acceptability prior to the introduction of a new vaccine provides important information for future policy and planning. Methods In a cross-sectional study in Katanga province, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), local perceptions of cholera and anticipated acceptance of an OCV were investigated. A random sample of 360 unaffected adults from a rural town and a remote fishing island was interviewed in 2010. In-depth interviews with a purposive sample of key informants and focus-group discussions provided contextual information. Socio-cultural determinants of anticipated OCV acceptance were assessed with logistic regression. Results Most respondents perceived contaminated water (63%) and food (61%) as main causes of cholera. Vaccines (28%), health education (18%) and the provision of clean water (15%) were considered the most effective measures of cholera control. Anticipated vaccine acceptance reached 97% if an OCV would be provided for free. Cholera-specific knowledge of hygiene and self-help in form of praying for healing were positively associated with anticipated OCV acceptance if costs of USD 5 were assumed. Conversely, respondents who feared negative social implications of cholera were less likely to anticipate acceptance of OCVs. These fears were especially prominent among respondents who generated their income through fishing. With an increase of assumed costs to USD 10.5, fear of financial constraints was negatively associated with anticipated vaccine acceptance as well. Conclusions Results suggest a high motivation to use an OCV as long as it seems affordable. The needs of socially marginalized groups such as fishermen may have to be explicitly addressed when preparing for a mass vaccination campaign.

Abstract Background Responding to the high burden of cholera in developing countries, the WHO now considers vaccination as a supplement to the provision of safe drinking water and improved sanitation in the strategy for cholera control in endemic settings. Cultural concepts of illness affect many aspects of public health. In the first step of a two-step strategy to examine determinants of cholera vaccine acceptance, this study identified social and cultural features of diarrhoeal illness for cholera control in endemic communities. Methods A cultural epidemiological study with locally adapted vignette-based interviews was conducted in two cholera-endemic communities of Zanzibar. A random sample of unaffected peri-urban (n = 179) and rural (n = 177) adults was interviewed to study community ideas of cholera and shigellosis, considering categories of distress, perceived causes, and help-seeking behaviour. Results Cholera was recognised by 88%. Symptoms of dehydration were most prominent in reports at the peri-urban site. Interference with work leading to strain on household finances was frequently emphasised. Dirty environment was the most prominent perceived cause, followed by unsafe drinking water and germ-carrying flies. Causes unrelated to the biomedical basis of cholera were reported more often by rural respondents. Rural women had more difficulty (20%) to identify a cause than men (7.1%, p = 0.016). Peri-urban self treatment emphasised rehydration; the rural community preferred herbal treatment and antibiotics. Shigellosis was recognised by 70%. Fewer regarded it as very serious compared with cholera (76% vs. 97%, p < 0.001) and regarded it as less likely to be fatal (48% vs. 78%, p < 0.001). More respondents could not explain causes of shigellosis (23%) compared with cholera (7.3%, p < 0.001). Community respondents less frequently identified dehydration and contagiousness for shigellosis. Government facilities were preferred healthcare providers for both conditions. Conclusions This study clarified local views of cholera and shigellosis relevant for diarrhoeal disease control in Zanzibar. The finding that rural women were less likely than men to specify causes of cholera suggests more attention to them is required. Better health education is needed for cholera in rural areas and for shigellosis in general. This study also identified variables for subsequent analysis of social and cultural determinants of cholera vaccine acceptance.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative policy options. Each resulting cost-effectiveness ratio represents the magnitude of additional health gained per additional unit of resources spent. Cost-effectiveness thresholds allow cost-effectiveness ratios that represent good or very good value for money to be identified. In 2001, the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested cost-effectiveness thresholds based on multiples of a country's per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). In some contexts, in choosing which health interventions to fund and which not to fund, these thresholds have been used as decision rules. However, experience with the use of such GDP-based thresholds in decision-making processes at country level shows them to lack country specificity and this-in addition to uncertainty in the modelled cost-effectiveness ratios-can lead to the wrong decision on how to spend health-care resources. Cost-effectiveness information should be used alongside other considerations-e.g. budget impact and feasibility considerations-in a transparent decision-making process, rather than in isolation based on a single threshold value. Although cost-effectiveness ratios are undoubtedly informative in assessing value for money, countries should be encouraged to develop a context-specific process for decision-making that is supported by legislation, has stakeholder buy-in, for example the involvement of civil society organizations and patient groups, and is transparent, consistent and fair.