ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe COVID-19 vaccine supply shortage in 2021 constrained rollout efforts in Africa while populations experienced waves of epidemics. As supply picks up, a key question becomes if vaccination remains an impactful and cost-effective strategy given changes in the timing of implementation. MethodsWe assessed the impact of timing using an epidemiological and economic model. We fitted our mathematical epidemiological model to reported COVID-19 deaths in 27 African countries to estimate the existing immunity (resulting from infection) before substantial vaccine rollout. We then projected health outcomes for different programme start dates (2021-01-01 to 2021-12-01, n = 12) and roll-out rates (slow, medium, fast; 275, 826, and 2066 doses/ million population-day, respectively) for viral vector and mRNA vaccines. Rollout rates used were derived from observed uptake trajectories. We collected data on vaccine delivery costs by country income group. Lastly, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and relative affordability. FindingsVaccination programmes with early start dates incur the most health benefits and are most cost-effective. While incurring the most health benefits, fast vaccine roll-outs are not always the most cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.5xGDP per capita, vaccine programmes starting in August 2021 using mRNA and viral vector vaccines were cost-effective in 6-10 and 17-18 of 27 countries, respectively. InterpretationAfrican countries with large proportions of their populations unvaccinated by late 2021 may find vaccination programmes less cost-effective than they could have been earlier in 2021. Lower vaccine purchasing costs and/or the emergence of new variants may improve cost-effectiveness. FundingBill and Melinda Gates Foundation, World Health Organization, National Institute of Health Research (UK), Health Data Research (UK)
ABSTRACT
The West African Health Organization (WAHO) supported an innovative regional initiative that contributes to building effective decision making, community and researcher partnerships to strengthen equitable health systems and influence local programmes and policies. Four projects were funded in Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso and Senegal, supported by a Regional Advisory Committee of experts and local Steering Committees. Based on a framework drawn from WAHO objectives, we reviewed documents, conducted 56 project stakeholder interviews and undertook thematic analysis. A diverse range of stakeholders perceived that the projects were in line with national priorities, were well managed and were equitably implemented. The projects generated evidence that could increase access to and improve quality maternal health services. Sustainable partnerships were formed and stakeholder and research team capacity were strengthened. Our study provides insight into project implementation in West Africa, bearing in mind context-specific issues. (Afr J Reprod Health 2022; 26[5]: 81-89).
Subject(s)
Equity in Access to Health Services , Structures Strengthening , Africa, Western , Delivery of Health Care , Regional Health Planning , Health GovernanceABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is mounting evidence of poor adherence by health service personnel to clinical guidelines for malaria following a symptomatic diagnosis. In response to this, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that in all settings clinical suspicion of malaria should be confirmed by parasitological diagnosis using microscopy or Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT). The Government of Nigeria plans to introduce RDTs in public health facilities over the coming year. In this context, we will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two interventions designed to support the roll-out of RDTs and improve the rational use of ACTs. It is feared that without supporting interventions, non-adherence will remain a serious impediment to implementing malaria treatment guidelines. METHODS/DESIGN: A three-arm stratified cluster randomized trial is used to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of: (1) provider malaria training intervention versus expected standard practice in malaria diagnosis and treatment; (2) provider malaria training intervention plus school-based intervention versus expected standard practice; and (3) the combined provider plus school-based intervention versus provider intervention alone. RDTs will be introduced in all arms of the trial. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients attending facilities that report a fever or suspected malaria and receive treatment according to malaria guidelines. This will be measured by surveying patients (or caregivers) as they exit primary health centers, pharmacies, and patent medicine dealers. Cost-effectiveness will be presented in terms of the primary outcome and a range of secondary outcomes, including changes in provider and community knowledge. Costs will be estimated from both a societal and provider perspective using standard economic evaluation methodologies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01350752.
