ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024
Cost effectiveness and decision analysis for national airport screening options to reduce risk of COVID-19 introduction in Uganda, 2020.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Economic Value of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions for Influenza and COVID-19: A Systematic Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Improving the effectiveness of Field Epidemiology Training Programs: characteristics that facilitated effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Uganda.BMC health services research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly during the COVID-19 outbreak, various approaches were utilized to prevent COVID-19 introductions from incoming airport travellers. However, the costs and effectiveness of airport-specific interventions have not been evaluated.
methodsWe evaluated policy options for COVID-19-specific interventions at Entebbe International Airport for costs and impact on COVID-19 case counts, we took the government payer perspective. Policy options included; (1)no screening, testing, or mandatory quarantine for any incoming traveller; (2)mandatory symptom screening for all incoming travellers with RT-PCR testing only for the symptomatic and isolation of positives; and (3)mandatory 14-day quarantine and one-time testing for all, with 10-day isolation of persons testing positive. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US$ per additional case averted.
resultsExpected costs per incoming traveller were $0 (Option 1), $19 (Option 2), and $766 (Option 3). ICERs per case averted were $257 for Option 2 (which averted 4,948 cases), and $10,139 for Option 3 (which averted 5,097 cases) compared with Option I. Two-week costs were $0 for Option 1, $1,271,431 Option 2, and $51,684,999 Option 3. The per-case ICER decreased with increase in prevalence. The cost-effectiveness of our interventions was modestly sensitive to the prevalence of COVID-19, diagnostic test sensitivity, and testing costs.
conclusionScreening all incoming travellers, testing symptomatic persons, and isolating positives (Option 2) was the most cost-effective option. A higher COVID-19 prevalence among incoming travellers increased cost-effectiveness of airport-specific interventions. This model could be used to evaluate prevention options at the airport for COVID-19 and other infectious diseases with similar requirements for control.
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.