ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of strategies to improve measles vaccination coverage in Kenya.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measles control efforts have been implemented over the years. However, elimination of the disease is yet to be realized. Additionally, global measles vaccination coverage has stagnated over the past decade, leading to outbreaks. We assessed the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of scaling-up vaccination coverage in Kenya, towards the measles elimination goal. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model from a health system's perspective over a 10-year time frame, incorporating a new birth cohort annually. Two vaccination scenarios were examined 1) a constant coverage improvement scenario, assuming current funding is maintained resulting in annual increases of 0.3% and 2% in the first and second-dose measles vaccine coverage, respectively, alongside supplementary immunization activities(SIAs) and 2) an intensified investment scenario, assuming achievement of 95% coverage for both vaccine doses in addition to SIAs. The later assumed increased investments to reach hard-to-reach populations. A threshold of USD 1,280 per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted was applied. A budget impact analysis was also conducted. Over a 10-year time horizon, the constant coverage improvement scenario led to 6% fewer deaths (213 (161-276)) and was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER = USD 1,269 ($1,205-$1,333) per DALY averted) compared to the base scenario. Increasing coverage in the intensified investment scenario, further reduced deaths by 25% (879(626--1,284)) and was more cost effective, ICER 1,093 (1,029 -1,157) per DALY averted, compared to the constant improvement scenario. The constant improvement scenario had a moderate budget impact while the intensified improvement scenario had a very high budget impact, when assessed against Kenya's health expenditure. Our findings suggest that accelerating measles coverage through intensified investments towards measles elimination is cost-effective but has a high budget impact. Therefore, policy makers should consider market shaping interventions and strategies to mobilize and allocate sufficient resources to increase vaccination coverage and ensure sustained health gains.
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.