Title |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of N95 respirators and medical masks to protect healthcare workers in China from respiratory infections
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12879-017-2564-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Shohini Mukerji, C. Raina MacIntyre, Holly Seale, Quanyi Wang, Peng Yang, Xiaoli Wang, Anthony T. Newall |
Abstract |
There are substantial differences between the costs of medical masks and N95 respirators. Cost-effectiveness analysis is required to assist decision-makers evaluating alternative healthcare worker (HCW) mask/respirator strategies. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks for protecting HCWs in Beijing, China. We developed a cost-effectiveness analysis model utilising efficacy and resource use data from two cluster randomised clinical trials assessing various mask/respirator strategies conducted in HCWs in Level 2 and 3 Beijing hospitals for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 influenza seasons. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per clinical respiratory illness (CRI) case prevented. We used a societal perspective which included intervention costs, the healthcare costs of CRI in HCWs and absenteeism costs. The incremental cost to prevent a CRI case with continuous use of N95 respirators when compared to medical masks ranged from US $490-$1230 (approx. 3000-7600 RMB). One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the CRI attack rate and intervention effectiveness had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness. The determination of cost-effectiveness for mask/respirator strategies will depend on the willingness to pay to prevent a CRI case in a HCW, which will vary between countries. In the case of a highly pathogenic pandemic, respirator use in HCWs would likely be a cost-effective intervention. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 10 | 24% |
Australia | 3 | 7% |
Canada | 3 | 7% |
India | 2 | 5% |
Sao Tome and Principe | 1 | 2% |
Spain | 1 | 2% |
Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
Algeria | 1 | 2% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 2% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 17 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 31 | 76% |
Scientists | 6 | 15% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 7% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 123 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 23 | 19% |
Researcher | 15 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
Other | 22 | 18% |
Unknown | 31 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 28% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 11% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
Other | 21 | 17% |
Unknown | 40 | 33% |