Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25879422›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2015

Modelling the return on investment of preventively vaccinating healthcare workers against pertussis.

Luqman Tariq, Marie-Josée J Mangen, Anke Hövels, Gerard Frijstein, Hero de Boer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Luqman TariqDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. luqman.l.tariq@gsk.com.
Marie-Josée J MangenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.J.J.Mangen@umcutrecht.nl.
Anke HövelsDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. A.M.Hovels@uu.nl.
Gerard FrijsteinAcademic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.frijstein@amc.uva.nl.
Hero de BoerAcademic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. h.e.deboer@amc.uva.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at particular risk of acquiring pertussis and transmitting the infection to high-risk susceptible patients and colleagues. In this paper, the return on investment (ROI) of preventively vaccinating HCWs against pertussis to prevent nosocomial pertussis outbreaks is estimated using a hospital ward perspective, presuming an outbreak occurs once in 10 years.

methodsData on the pertussis outbreak on the neonatology ward in 2004 in the Academic Medical Center Amsterdam (The Netherlands) was used to calculate control costs and other outbreak related costs. The study population was: neonatology ward staff members (n = 133), parents (n = 40), neonates (n = 20), and newborns transferred to other hospitals (n = 23). ROI is presented as the amount of Euros saved in averting outbreaks by investing one Euro in preventively vaccinating HCWs. Sensitivity analysis was performed to study the robustness of the ROI. Results are presented at 2012 price level.

resultsTotal nosocomial pertussis outbreak costs were €48,682. Direct control costs (i.e. antibiotic therapy, laboratory investigation and outbreak management control) were €11,464. Other outbreak related costs (i.e. sick leave of HCWs; restrictions on the neonatology ward, savings due to reduced working force required) accounted for €37,218. Vaccination costs were estimated at €12,208. The ROI of preventively vaccinating HCWs against pertussis was 1:4, meaning 4 Euros could be saved by every Euro invested in vaccinating HCWs to avert outbreaks. ROI was sensitive to a lower vaccine price, considering direct control costs only, average length of stay of neonates on the neonatology ward, length of patient uptake restrictions, assuming no reduced work force due to ward closer and presuming more than one outbreak to occur in 10 years' time.

conclusionFrom a hospital ward perspective, preventive vaccination of HCWs against pertussis to prevent nosocomial pertussis outbreaks results in a positive ROI, presuming an outbreak occurs once in 10 years.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelModels, EconometricAcademic Medical CentersAdultCross InfectionDisease OutbreaksFemaleHospital CostsHumansInfant, NewbornInvestmentsLength of StayMaleNetherlandsPertussis VaccineVaccinationPertussis Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID25879422
PMCPMC4340637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.