SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2026
The Economic Value of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions for Influenza and COVID-19: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are central to mitigating COVID-19 and influenza, yet comparative economic evaluations remain scarce. This systematic review assessed the cost effectiveness and reporting quality of NPI evaluations across both diseases. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024552613).
methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched five medical (PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EconLit) and four health technology assessment databases (NHS HTA, CRD DARE, NHS EED, and INAHTA) up to December 2025, including only full economic evaluations. The search strategy incorporated four domains-'influenza,' 'COVID-19,' 'NPIs,' and 'economic evaluation'-and was guided by the WHO NPI framework, encompassing five domains: personal protective, environmental, physical distancing, travel-related, and educational measures. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) checklist.
resultsThirty-three studies (13 influenza, 20 COVID-19), predominantly from high-income countries, were included. School closures, the most frequently evaluated NPI, were generally not cost effective except during severe pandemics or bundled with other measures. Workforce and business closures were cost effective only in high-severity influenza, with inconsistent findings for COVID-19. Social distancing was cost effective for COVID-19 but not for H1N1 influenza. Isolation, lockdowns, and travel restrictions were cost effective only when implemented early. Face masks and hand hygiene, assessed solely for COVID-19, were generally cost effective when implemented alongside other measures. The median CHEERS score was 75.0%, with one study rated excellent.
conclusionOur review highlights heterogeneity in cost effectiveness by pandemic severity, intervention type, bundling of measures, and timing. Strategies that combined low-cost NPIs like masks or hand hygiene demonstrated better value, while socially disruptive measures like school and business closure incurred high costs with inconsistent cost-effectiveness outcomes. Integration with vaccines or antivirals further enhanced cost effectiveness. Evidence gaps include the scarcity of evaluations from low-resource settings and variability in country-specific value thresholds. Addressing these gaps is essential for guiding efficient and cost-effective pandemic preparedness.
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.