Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective To assess the efficacy of modest non-financial incentives on immunisation rates in children aged 1-3 and to compare it with the effect of only improving the reliability of the supply of services.Design Clustered randomised controlled study. Setting Rural Rajasthan, India.Participants 1640 children aged 1-3 at end point.Interventions 134 villages were randomised to one of three groups: a once monthly reliable immunisation camp (intervention A; 379 children from 30 villages); a once monthly reliable immunisation camp with small incentives (raw lentils and metal plates for completed immunisation; intervention B; 382 children from 30 villages), or control (no intervention, 860 children in 74 villages). Surveys were undertaken in randomly selected households at baseline and about 18 months after the interventions started (end point).Main outcome measures Proportion of children aged 1-3 at the end point who were partially or fully immunised.Results Among children aged 1-3 in the end point survey, rates of full immunisation were 39% (148/382, 95% confidence interval 30% to 47%) for intervention B villages (reliable immunisation with incentives), 18% (68/379, 11% to 23%) for intervention A villages (reliable immunisation without incentives), and 6% (50/860, 3% to 9%) for control villages. The relative risk of complete immunisation for intervention B versus control was 6.7 (4.5 to 8.8) and for intervention B versus intervention A was 2.2 (1.5 to 2.8). Children in areas neighbouring intervention B villages were also more likely to be fully immunised than those from areas neighbouring intervention A villages (1.9, 1.1 to 2.8). The average cost per immunisation was $28 (1102 rupees, about £16 or €19) in intervention A and $56 (2202 rupees) in intervention B.Conclusions Improving reliability of services improves immunisation rates, but the effect remains modest. Small incentives have large positive impacts on the uptake of immunisation services in resource poor areas and are more cost effective than purely improving supply.Trial registration IRSCTN87759937.

Vaccination is a cost-effective public health intervention, yet evidence abounds that vaccination uptake is still poor in many low- and middle-income countries. Traditional and Religious Leaders play a substantial role in improving the uptake of health services such as immunization. However, there is paucity of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of using such strategies. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using a multi-faceted intervention that included traditional and religious leaders for community engagement to improve uptake of routine immunisation services in communities in Cross River State, Southern Nigeria. The target population for the intervention was traditional and religious leaders in randomly selected communities in Cross River State. The impact of the intervention on the uptake of routine vaccination among children 0 to 23 months was assessed using a cluster randomized trials. Outcome assessments were performed at the end of the project (36 months).The cost of the intervention was obtained from the accounting records for expenditures incurred in the course of implementing the intervention. Costs were assessed from the health provider perspective. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the incremental cost of the initial implementation of the intervention was US $19,357and that the incremental effect was 323 measles cases averted, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$ 60/measles case averted. However, for subsequent scale-up of the interventions to new areas not requiring a repeat expenditure of some of the initial capital expenditure the ICER was estimated to be US$34 per measles case averted. Involving the traditional and religious leaders in vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for improving the uptake of childhood routine vaccinations.

Background Vaccination is a cost-effective and life-saving intervention. Recently several new, but more expensive vaccines have become part of immunization programmes in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Monitoring vaccine wastage helps to improve vaccine forecasting and minimise wastage. As the costs of vaccination increases better vaccine management is essential. Many LMIC however do not consistently monitor vaccine wastage. Methods We conducted two surveys in health facilities in rural and urban Gambia; 1) a prospective six months survey in two regions to estimate vaccine wastage rates and type of wastage for each of the vaccines administered by the Expanded programme on Immunization (EPI) and 2) a nationwide cross sectional survey of health workers from randomly selected facilities to assess knowledge, attitude and practice on vaccine waste management. We used WHO recommended forms and standard questionnaires. Wastage rates were compared to EPI targets. Results Wastage rates for the lyophilised vaccines BCG, Measles and Yellow Fever ranged from 18.5–79.0%, 0–30.9% and 0–55.0% respectively, mainly through unused doses at the end of an immunization session. Wastage from the liquid vaccines multi-dose/ single dose vials were minimal, with peaks due to expiry or breakage of the vaccine diluent. We interviewed 80 health workers and observed good knowledge. Batching children for BCG was uncommon (19%) whereas most health workers (73.4%) will open a vial as needed. Conclusion National projected wastage targets were met for the multi-dose/single dose vials, but for lyophilised vaccines, the target was only met in the largest major health facility.

State health departments commonly use quality improvement coaching as an implementation strategy for improving low human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage, but such coaching can be resource intensive. To explore opportunities for improving efficiency, we compared in-person and webinar delivery of coaching sessions on implementation outcomes, including reach, acceptability, and delivery cost. In 2015, we randomly assigned 148 high-volume primary care clinics in Illinois, Michigan, and Washington State to receive either in-person or webinar coaching. Coaching sessions lasted about 1 hr and used our Immunization Report Card to facilitate assessment and feedback. Clinics served over 213,000 patients ages 11-17. We used provider surveys and delivery cost assessment to collect implementation data. This report is focused exclusively on the implementation aspects of the intervention. More providers attended in-person than webinar coaching sessions (mean 9 vs. 5 providers per clinic, respectively, p = .004). More providers shared the Immunization Report Card at clinic staff meetings in the in-person than webinar arm (49% vs. 20%; p = .029). In both arms, providers' belief that their clinics' HPV vaccination coverage was too low increased, as did their self-efficacy to help their clinics improve (p < .05). Providers rated coaching sessions in the two arms equally highly on acceptability. Delivery cost per clinic was$733 for in-person coaching versus $ 461 for webinar coaching. In-person and webinar coaching were well received and yielded improvements in provider beliefs and self-efficacy regarding HPV vaccine quality improvement. In summary, in-person coaching cost more than webinar coaching per clinic reached, but reached more providers. Further implementation research is needed to understand how and for whom webinar coaching may be appropriate. Keywords HPV vaccine, Immunization programs, Quality improvement coaching, Primary care, State health departments, Assessment and feedback

IntroductionA motivated and satisfied health workforce is critical for the success of mass vaccination campaigns targeting diseases like polio. This study examined whether supporting districts to implement electronic cash (e-cash) payments, instead of cash, increased e-cash usage and improved vaccine campaign healthcare workers’ (VCHWs) motivation and satisfaction during an oral poliovirus vaccination campaign in 2022 in Uganda.MethodsIn November 2022, 54 districts and 2665 VCHWs were enrolled and randomised. Intervention districts received training on navigating the government e-cash platform, user roles, beneficiary data upload and payment report generation. Control districts received standard support. Data collected included mode of payment (cash or e-cash), VCHW motivation (primary outcome) and satisfaction with the payment method. Primary analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis, with 589 (44.1%) VCHWs in control and 765 (57.5%) in intervention districts receiving e-cash.ResultsE-cash payments were more common in intervention districts (765/1330, 57.5%) compared with controls (589/1335, 44.1%). VCHWs in intervention districts were more likely to be paid via e-cash (adjusted OR (AOR) 3.15; 95% CI: 0.40 to 10.70; p=0.079). Nearly all VCHWs (97.6%) received payments after campaign completion. There was no significant difference in motivation (AOR=0.82; 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.44; p=0.498) or satisfaction (AOR=1.01; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.55; p=0.641) between groups. Participants reported e-cash as convenient, transparent, time-saving and cost-saving.ConclusionSupporting districts to operationalise digital payments increased e-cash usage among vaccination workers, despite delays. However, it did not significantly impact motivation or satisfaction.Trial registration numberNCT05684081.

Background Studies have noted variations in the cost-effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV), but little is known about how SLIV’s cost-effectiveness may vary by targeted age group (e.g., elementary or secondary school students), or vaccine consent process (paper-based or web-based). Further, SLIV’s cost-effectiveness may be impacted by its spillover effect on practice-based vaccination; prior studies have not addressed this issue. Methods We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on two SLIV programs in upstate New York in 2015–2016: (a) elementary school SLIV using a stepped wedge design with schools as clusters (24 suburban and 18 urban schools) and (b) secondary school SLIV using a cluster randomized trial (16 suburban and 4 urban schools). The cost-per-additionally-vaccinated child (i.e., incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)) was estimated by dividing the incremental SLIV intervention cost by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the additional number of vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). We performed deterministic analyses, one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic analyses. Results The overall effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 5.7 and 5.5 percentage points higher, respectively, in intervention elementary (52.8%) and secondary schools (48.2%) than grade-matched control schools. SLIV programs vaccinated a small proportion of children in intervention elementary (5.2%) and secondary schools (2.5%). In elementary and secondary schools, the ICER excluding vaccine purchase was $85.71 and $86.51 per-additionally-vaccinated-child, respectively. When additionally accounting for observed spillover impact on practice-based vaccination, the ICER decreased to $80.53 in elementary schools -- decreasing substantially in secondary schools. (to $53.40). These estimates were higher than the published practice-based vaccination cost (median = $25.50, mean = $45.48). Also, these estimates were higher than our 2009–2011 urban SLIV program mean costs ($65) due to additional costs for use of a new web-based consent system ($12.97 per-additionally-vaccinated-child) and higher project coordination costs in 2015–2016. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that ICER estimates were most sensitive to the SLIV effectiveness. Conclusions SLIV raises vaccination rates and may increase practice-based vaccination in primary care practices. While these SLIV programs are effective, to be as cost-effective as practice-based vaccination our SLIV programs would need to vaccinate more students and/or lower the costs for consent systems and project coordination. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02227186 (August 25, 2014), updated NCT03137667 (May 2, 2017).

To determine the clinical efficacy and cost-saving effect of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) against community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), an open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted involving 786 Japanese subjects older than 65 years of age receiving a routine influenza vaccine during the 2-year period. Study subjects were randomly assigned to either a PPV group ( n = 394) or to a non-PPV group ( n = 392). The incidence, admission and the medical cost for all-cause pneumonia were compared between these two groups. PPV vaccination significantly reduced the incidence of admission for all-cause pneumonia for subjects older than 75 years of age (41.5%, P = 0.039) and for those who had difficulty walking (62.7%, P = 0.005), but not for all study subjects older than 65 years of age ( P = 0.183), for the 2-year period. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves for subjects who had difficulty walking free from all-cause pneumonia demonstrated a significant difference ( P = 0.0146) between the two groups. PPV vaccination significantly reduced medical costs for all study subjects during the first year period ( P = 0.027). Our present data demonstrated that PPV was effective for all-cause pneumonia for study subjects older than 75 years of age, although the effect was not significant for all study subjects older than 65 years of age.

Background School-located vaccination against influenza (SLV-I) has the potential to improve current suboptimal influenza immunization coverage for U.S. school-aged children. However, little is known about SLV-I’s cost-effectiveness. The objective of this study is to establish the cost-effectiveness of SLV-I based on a two-year community-based randomized controlled trial (Year 1: 2009–2010 vaccination season, an unusual H1N1 pandemic influenza season, and Year 2: 2010–2011, a more typical influenza season). Methods We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on a two-year randomized controlled trial of a Western New York SLV-I program. SLV-I clinics were offered in 21 intervention elementary schools (Year 1 n  = 9,027; Year 2 n  = 9,145 children) with standard-of-care (no SLV-I) in control schools (Year 1 n  = 4,534 (10 schools); Year 2 n  = 4,796 children (11 schools)). We estimated the cost-per-vaccinated child, by dividing the incremental cost of the intervention by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the number of additionally vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). Results In Years 1 and 2, respectively, the effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 11.2 and 12.0 percentage points higher in intervention (40.7 % and 40.4 %) than control schools. In year 2, the cost-per-vaccinated child excluding vaccine purchase ($59.88 in 2010 US $) consisted of three component costs: (A) the school costs ($8.25); (B) the project coordination costs ($32.33); and (C) the vendor costs excluding vaccine purchase ($16.68), summed through Monte Carlo simulation. Compared to Year 1, the two component costs (A) and (C) decreased, while the component cost (B) increased in Year 2. The cost-per-vaccinated child, excluding vaccine purchase, was $59.73 (Year 1) and $59.88 (Year 2, statistically indistinguishable from Year 1), higher than the published cost of providing influenza vaccination in medical practices ($39.54). However, taking indirect costs (e.g., averted parental costs to visit medical practices) into account, vaccination was less costly in SLV-I ($23.96 in Year 1, $24.07 in Year 2) than in medical practices. Conclusions Our two-year trial’s findings reinforced the evidence to support SLV-I as a potentially favorable system to increase childhood influenza vaccination rates in a cost-efficient way. Increased efficiencies in SLV-I are needed for a sustainable and scalable SLV-I program.

Despite the recommendation of the Dutch association of nursing home physicians (NVVA) to be immunized against influenza, vaccine uptake among HCWs in nursing homes remains unacceptably low. Therefore we conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial among 33 Dutch nursing homes to assess the effects of a systematically developed multi-faceted intervention program on influenza vaccine uptake among HCWs. The intervention program resulted in a significantly higher, though moderate, influenza vaccine uptake among HCWs in nursing homes. To take full advantage of this measure, either the program should be adjusted and implemented over a longer time period or mandatory influenza vaccination should be considered.

To evaluate the safety and coverage benefits of auto-disable (AD) syringes, weighed against the financial and logis- tical costs, and to create appropriate health policies in Madagascar. Fifteen clinics in Madagascar, trained to use AD syringes, were randomized to implement an AD syringe only, mixed (AD syringes used only on non-routine immunization days), or sterilizable syringe only (control) programme. During a five-week period, data on administered vaccinations were collected, interviews were conducted, and observations were recorded. The use of AD syringes improved coverage rates by significantly increasing the percentage of vaccines administered on non-routine immunization days (AD-only 4.3%, mixed 5.7%, control 1.1% (P<0.05)). AD-only clinics eliminated sterilization sessions for vaccinations, whereas mixed clinics reduced the number of sterilization sessions by 64%. AD syringes were five times more expensive than sterilizable syringes, which increased AD-only and mixed clinics' projected annual injection costs by 365% and 22%, respectively. However, introducing AD syringes for all vaccinations would only increase the national immunization budget by 2%. The use of AD syringes improved vaccination coverage rates by providing ready-to-use sterile syringes on non-routine immunization days and decreasing the number of sterilization sessions, thereby improving injection safety. The mixed programme was the most beneficial approach to phasing in AD syringes and diminishing logistical complications, and it had minimal costs. AD syringes, although more expensive, can feasibly be introduced into a developing country's immunization programme to improve vaccination safety and coverage.