| Title |
Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-015-0335-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bernhard Ultsch, Oliver Damm, Philippe Beutels, Joke Bilcke, Bernd Brüggenjürgen, Andreas Gerber-Grote, Wolfgang Greiner, Germaine Hanquet, Raymond Hutubessy, Mark Jit, Mirjam Knol, Rüdiger von Kries, Alexander Kuhlmann, Daniel Levy-Bruhl, Matthias Perleth, Maarten Postma, Heini Salo, Uwe Siebert, Jürgen Wasem, Ole Wichmann |
| Abstract |
Incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses [health economic evaluations (HEEs)] of vaccines are routinely considered in decision making on immunization in various industrialized countries. While guidelines advocating more standardization of such HEEs (mainly for curative drugs) exist, several immunization-specific aspects (e.g. indirect effects or discounting approach) are still a subject of debate within the scientific community. The objective of this study was to develop a consensus framework for HEEs of vaccines to support the development of national guidelines in Europe. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify prevailing issues related to HEEs of vaccines. Furthermore, European experts in the field of health economics and immunization decision making were nominated and asked to select relevant aspects for discussion. Based on this, a workshop was held with these experts. Aspects on 'mathematical modelling', 'health economics' and 'decision making' were debated in group-work sessions (GWS) to formulate recommendations and/or-if applicable-to state 'pros' and 'contras'. A total of 13 different aspects were identified for modelling and HEE: model selection, time horizon of models, natural disease history, measures of vaccine-induced protection, duration of vaccine-induced protection, indirect effects apart from herd protection, target population, model calibration and validation, handling uncertainty, discounting, health-related quality of life, cost components, and perspectives. For decision making, there were four aspects regarding the purpose and the integration of HEEs of vaccines in decision making as well as the variation of parameters within uncertainty analyses and the reporting of results from HEEs. For each aspect, background information and an expert consensus were formulated. There was consensus that when HEEs are used to prioritize healthcare funding, this should be done in a consistent way across all interventions, including vaccines. However, proper evaluation of vaccines implies using tools that are not commonly used for therapeutic drugs. Due to the complexity of and uncertainties around vaccination, transparency in the documentation of HEEs and during subsequent decision making is essential. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 2 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| Italy | 2 | 15% |
| India | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 198 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 30 | 15% |
| Unknown | 59 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 14 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 40 | 20% |
| Unknown | 71 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2020.
All research outputs
#2,379,422
of 23,924,386 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#193
of 1,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,531
of 287,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,924,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.