ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2017
Cost effectiveness of a practice-based intervention to improve vaccination rates in adults less than 65-years-old.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is further research on adult pneumococcal vaccine uptake improvement programs worthwhile? Α value of information analysis.Vaccine · 2021Article
- Gender, Socioeconomic, and Health Characteristics Associated with Influenza Vaccination Coverage (VC) among Italian Healthcare Workers: Secondary Analysis of a National Cross-Sectional Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Pneumococcal Vaccination Policies and Uptake Programs in US Older Populations.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2020Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Pneumococcal Vaccination and Uptake Improvement Programs in Underserved and General Population Adults Aged < 65 Years.Journal of community health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The cost-effectiveness of the 4 Pillars™ Practice Transformation Program to improve vaccination rates in adults <65-years-old is unknown. Two vaccines, influenza and Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis), were targeted for this age group. Cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared with control, with a primary outcome of cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, was estimated from societal and third party payer perspectives over a 10-year time horizon using a decision analysis model. Vaccination rates and intervention costs were derived from an intervention trial, and vaccine effectiveness, illness rates, and costs with/without vaccination were obtained from US databases and literature data. Future costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3%/year. The intervention cost was $1.78 per eligible patient/year. From the societal perspective, per patient total vaccination and illness costs with the intervention were $27.43 higher than control while gaining 0.00087 QALYs, costing $31,700/QALY gained. The intervention, extrapolated to the US population, could prevent 4.2 million cases, 87,489 hospitalizations, and 5,680 deaths due to influenza over 10 y in adults <65-years-old. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the intervention was favored in 68.2% of model runs at a $50,000/QALY level and in 94.3% at $100,000/QALY. In a separate scenario analysis, the intervention became cost saving if influenza economic burden was >$2,099 per case (societal base case $846). Thus, the 4 Pillars Practice Transformation Program is an economically reasonable intervention to improve vaccination rates in adults <65-years-old, and could have a substantial public health impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.