The costs of registry-based immunization interventions

Systematic review of the costs for vaccinators to reach vaccination sites: Incremental costs of reaching hard-to-reach populations

INTRODUCTION

Economic evidence on how much it may cost for vaccinators to reach populations is important to plan vaccination programs. Moreover, knowing the incremental costs to reach populations that have traditionally been undervaccinated, especially those hard-to-reach who are facing supply-side barriers to vaccination, is essential to expanding immunization coverage to these populations.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify estimates of costs associated with getting vaccinators to all vaccination sites. We searched PubMed and the Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue (IDCC) in 2019 for the following costs to vaccinators: (1) training costs; (2) labor costs, per diems, and incentives; (3) identification of vaccine beneficiary location; and (4) travel costs. We assessed if any of these costs were specific to populations that are hard-to-reach for vaccination, based on a framework for examining supply-side barriers to vaccination.

RESULTS

We found 19 studies describing average vaccinator training costs at $0.67/person vaccinated or targeted (SD $0.94) and $0.10/dose delivered (SD $0.07). The average cost for vaccinator labor and incentive costs across 29 studies was $2.15/dose (SD $2.08). We identified 13 studies describing intervention costs for a vaccinator to know the location of a beneficiary, with an average cost of $19.69/person (SD $26.65), and six studies describing vaccinator travel costs, with an average cost of $0.07/dose (SD $0.03). Only eight of these studies described hard-to-reach populations for vaccination; two studies examined incremental costs per dose to reach hard-to-reach populations, which were 1.3-2 times higher than the regular costs. The incremental cost to train vaccinators was $0.02/dose, and incremental labor costs for targeting hard-to-reach populations were $0.16-$1.17/dose.

CONCLUSION

Additional comparative costing studies are needed to understand the potential differential costs for vaccinators reaching the vaccination sites that serve hard-to-reach populations. This will help immunization program planners and decision-makers better allocate resources to extend vaccination programs.

Cost-effectiveness of Interventions to Increase HPV Vaccine Uptake

OBJECTIVES

We sought to prioritize interventions for increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage based on cost-effectiveness from a US state perspective to inform decisions by policy makers.

METHODS

We developed a dynamic simulation model of HPV transmission and progression scaled to a medium-sized US state (5 million individuals). We modeled outcomes over 50 years comparing no intervention to a one-year implementation of centralized reminder and recall for HPV vaccination, school-located HPV vaccination, or quality improvement (QI) visits to primary care clinics. We used probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess a range of plausible outcomes associated with each intervention. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated relative to a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold; $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) .

RESULTS

All interventions were cost-effective, relative to no intervention. QI visits had the lowest cost and cost per QALY gained ($1538 versus no intervention). Statewide implementation of centralized reminder and recall cost $28 289 per QALY gained versus QI visits. School-located vaccination had the highest cost but was cost-effective at $18 337 per QALY gained versus QI visits. Scaling to the US population, interventions could avert 3000 to 14 000 future HPV cancers. When varying intervention cost and impact over feasible ranges, interventions were typically preferred to no intervention, but cost-effectiveness varied between intervention strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Three interventions for increasing HPV vaccine coverage were cost-effective and offered substantial health benefits. Policy makers seeking to increase HPV vaccination should, at minimum, dedicate additional funding for QI visits, which are consistently effective at low cost and may additionally consider more resource-intensive interventions (reminder and recall or school-located vaccination).

Increasing Coverage of Appropriate Vaccinations: A Community Guide Systematic Economic Review

CONTEXT

Population-level coverage for immunization against many vaccine-preventable diseases remains below optimal rates in the U.S. The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended several interventions to increase vaccination coverage based on systematic reviews of the evaluation literature. The present study provides the economic results from those reviews.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was conducted (search period, January 1980 through February 2012) to identify economic evaluations of 12 interventions recommended by the Task Force. Evidence was drawn from included studies; estimates were constructed for the population reach of each strategy, cost of implementation, and cost per additional vaccinated person because of the intervention. Analyses were conducted in 2014.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Reminder systems, whether for clients or providers, were among the lowest-cost strategies to implement and the most cost effective in terms of additional people vaccinated. Strategies involving home visits and combination strategies in community settings were both costly and less cost effective. Strategies based in settings such as schools and MCOs that reached the target population achieved additional vaccinations in the middle range of cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The interventions recommended by the Task Force differed in reach, cost, and cost effectiveness. This systematic review presents the economic information for 12 effective strategies to increase vaccination coverage that can guide implementers in their choice of interventions to fit their local needs, available resources, and budget.

Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on immunisation uptake and parental knowledge.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to July 2012); EMBASE + Embase Classic (OvidSP) (1947 to July 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to July 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2012); Global Health (CAB) (1910 to July 2012); Global Health Library (WHO) (searched July 2012); Google Scholar (searched September 2012), ISI Web of Science (searched September 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles. We searched for ongoing trials in The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched August 2012) and for grey literature in The Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (searched August 2012). We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs evaluating the effects of face to face interventions delivered to individual parents or groups of parents to inform or educate about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face to face intervention. Early childhood vaccines are all recommended routine childhood vaccines outlined by the World Health Organization, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) which is delivered to adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed database search results for inclusion. Grey literature searches were conducted and reviewed by a single author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs and one cluster RCT involving a total of 2978 participants. Three studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries and four were conducted in high-income countries. The cluster RCT did not contribute usable data to the review. The interventions comprised a mix of single-session and multi-session strategies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low and the studies were at moderate risk of bias overall. All these trials compared face to face interventions directed to individual parents with control.The three studies assessing the effect of a single-session intervention on immunisation status could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. The overall result is uncertain because the individual study results ranged from no evidence of effect to a significant increase in immunisation.Two studies assessed the effect of a multi-session intervention on immunisation status. These studies were also not pooled due to heterogeneity and the result was very uncertain, ranging from a non-significant decrease in immunisation to no evidence of effect.The two studies assessing the effect of a face to face intervention on knowledge or understanding of vaccination were very uncertain and were not pooled as data from one study were skewed. However, neither study showed evidence of an effect on knowledge scores in the intervention group. Only one study measured the cost of a case management intervention. The estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care.The review also considered the following secondary outcomes: intention to vaccinate child, parent experience of intervention, and adverse effects. No adverse effects related to the intervention were measured by any of the included studies, and there were no data on the other outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence available is low quality and suggests that face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about childhood vaccination have little to no impact on immunisation status, or knowledge or understanding of vaccination. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the cost of implementing the intervention, parent intention to vaccinate, parent experience of the intervention, or adverse effects. Given the apparently limited effect of such interventions, it may be feasible and appropriate to incorporate communication about vaccination into a healthcare encounter, rather than conduct it as a separate activity.

Outcomes and costs of community health worker interventions: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review on outcomes and costs of community health worker (CHW) interventions. CHWs are increasingly expected to improve health outcomes cost-effectively for the underserved.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We searched Medline, Cochrane Collaboration resources, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for studies conducted in the United States and published in English from 1980 through November 2008. We dually reviewed abstracts, full-text articles, data abstractions, quality ratings, and strength of evidence grades and resolved disagreements by consensus.

RESULTS

We included 53 studies on outcomes of CHW interventions and 6 on cost or cost-effectiveness. For outcomes, limited evidence (5 studies) suggests that CHW interventions can improve participant knowledge compared with alternative approaches or no intervention. We found mixed evidence for participant behavior change (22 studies) and health outcomes (27 studies). Some studies suggested that CHW interventions can result in greater improvements in participant behavior and health outcomes compared with various alternatives, but other studies suggested that CHW interventions provide no statistically different benefits than alternatives. We found low or moderate strength of evidence suggesting that CHWs can increase appropriate health care utilization for some interventions (30 studies). Six studies with economic information yielded insufficient data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CHW interventions relative to other interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

CHWs can improve outcomes for underserved populations for some health conditions. The effectiveness of CHWs in many health care areas requires further research that addresses the methodologic limitations of prior studies and that contributes to translating research into practice.

Are vaccination programmes delivered by lay health workers cost-effective? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A recently updated Cochrane systematic review on the effects of lay or community health workers (LHWs) in primary and community health care concluded that LHW interventions could lead to promising benefits in the promotion of childhood vaccination uptake. However, understanding of the costs and cost-effectiveness of involving LHWs in vaccination programmes remains poor. This paper reviews the costs and cost-effectiveness of vaccination programme interventions involving LHWs.

METHODS

Articles were retrieved if the title, keywords or abstract included terms related to 'lay health workers', 'vaccination' and 'economics'. Reference lists of studies assessed for inclusion were also searched and attempts were made to contact authors of all studies included in the Cochrane review. Studies were included after assessing eligibility of the full-text article. The included studies were then reviewed against a set of background and technical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 2616 records identified, only three studies fully met the inclusion criteria, while an additional 11 were retained as they included some cost data. Methodologically, the studies were strong but did not adequately address affordability and sustainability and were also highly heterogeneous in terms of settings and LHW outcomes, limiting their comparability. There were insufficient data to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding the cost-effectiveness of LHW interventions to promote vaccination uptake. Studies focused largely on health outcomes and did illustrate to some extent how the institutional characteristics of communities, such as governance and sources of financial support, influence sustainability.

CONCLUSION

The included studies suggest that conventional economic evaluations, particularly cost-effectiveness analyses, generally focus too narrowly on health outcomes, especially in the context of vaccination promotion and delivery at the primary health care level by LHWs. Further studies on the costs and cost-effectiveness of vaccination programmes involving LHWs should be conducted, and these studies should adopt a broader and more holistic approach.

Using a registry to improve immunization delivery

The NJIPSP was successful in encouraging a group of small urban practices to adopt the use of immunization registry and to transform immunization delivery from a mechanistic well-child service to a visible, monitored process of care. The project represents a unique combination of technology, public-private collaboration, and well-established quality improvement techniques. The change process involved the whole office as a team in adopting new immunization delivery roles and services. The greatest barrier to acceptance of the registry was (and continues to be) the need for manual data entry as the primary source of data collection, rather than electronic data transfer from other systems. The manual entry of data was labor intensive for participating practices and affected data measurement. Despite this barrier, however, the majority of practices substantially improved the quality of their immunization delivery practices in multiple areas. The rapid movement of primary care practices toward some form of electronic record may reduce this barrier and increase the percentage of practices willing to use a community registry. Practices that engaged collectively in the change process gained momentum from the group effort. Equally important was the public health partnership that helped identify and reduce improvement obstacles. Sustainability of practice-based immunization changes will rely, in part, on the registry's ease of use and the continued visibility of public health at the practice level. Active practice level collaboration by public health adds great value to change efforts. We believe that the best possible immunization delivery relies on both technology (registries and the EMR) and effective office systems. Projects like the NJIPSP are models for systems that integrate technology, practice change, and quality improvement, and their success has the potential to foster the spread of this approach to other primary care practices (especially in New Jersey). The NJIPSP combination of office-based change approaches and an active partnership and hands on involvement with public health has the potential to support the delivery of consistently excellent immunization delivery.

The challenge and potential of childhood immunization registries

Recent efforts to attain near-complete coverage of child populations by recommended vaccines have included initiatives by federal and state agencies, as well as private foundations, to develop and implement statewide or community-based childhood immunization registries. Plans for a single, national registry have been set aside in favor of a national network of local and state registries linked through the use of common definitions and unique child identifiers. However, both operational/technical and financing difficulties have slowed their development. The experience to date in selected areas has provided useful lessons for further development of a registry system and has underscored the potential of such systems to assure the success of childhood immunization initiatives.

Fragmentation of immunization history among providers and parents of children in selected underserved areas

OBJECTIVE

We assessed fragmentation of children's immunization history among providers and parents of children aged 12 to 35 months in four selected underserved areas.

STUDY DESIGN

Area probability cluster sample surveys were conducted in 1997-1998 in northern Manhattan, San Diego, Detroit, and rural Colorado. Surveys consisted of face-to-face interviews with parents followed by record checks with all named immunization providers. We used Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations to determine up-to-date (UTD) status with vaccinations. The UTD status for each child was determined in four ways: (1) according to the parent-held immunization records, (2) according to the records of the child's most recent provider, (3) according to the records of the child's second most recent provider, and (4) according to provider and parent-reconciled information.

RESULTS

In all four areas, the majority of records of the most recent provider agreed with the reconciled information. However, in all areas, the percentage of children UTD according to provider- and parent-reconciled information was higher than the percentage of children UTD according to information from only the child's most recent provider or from only parent-held immunization records. Across all sites, the percentage of children UTD with the DTP/DTaP vaccine was 2% to 9% lower, according to the most recent provider's information than according to reconciled information. Similar results were seen for other vaccines. The most recent provider not having complete immunization history was significantly associated with not being UTD in New York and having received unnecessary immunizations in San Diego and Detroit.

CONCLUSION

For most children, although the records of the most recent provider give accurate data for clinical decision making, the immunization histories of some children in these underserved areas are fragmented between providers and parents. This can limit the provider's ability to vaccinate children appropriately.