Cost-effectiveness analysis of an intervention project engaging Traditional and Religious Leaders to improve uptake of childhood immunization in southern Nigeria.

Vaccination is a cost-effective public health intervention, yet evidence abounds that vaccination uptake is still poor in many low- and middle-income countries. Traditional and Religious Leaders play a substantial role in improving the uptake of health services such as immunization. However, there is paucity of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of using such strategies. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using a multi-faceted intervention that included traditional and religious leaders for community engagement to improve uptake of routine immunisation services in communities in Cross River State, Southern Nigeria. The target population for the intervention was traditional and religious leaders in randomly selected communities in Cross River State. The impact of the intervention on the uptake of routine vaccination among children 0 to 23 months was assessed using a cluster randomized trials. Outcome assessments were performed at the end of the project (36 months).The cost of the intervention was obtained from the accounting records for expenditures incurred in the course of implementing the intervention. Costs were assessed from the health provider perspective. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the incremental cost of the initial implementation of the intervention was US$19,357and that the incremental effect was 323 measles cases averted, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$60/measles case averted. However, for subsequent scale-up of the interventions to new areas not requiring a repeat expenditure of some of the initial capital expenditure the ICER was estimated to be US$34 per measles case averted. Involving the traditional and religious leaders in vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for improving the uptake of childhood routine vaccinations.

Formalising the induction of patient and public involvement contributors on trial oversight committees.

BACKGROUND: Clinical Trials Units are encouraged to integrate Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) into all aspects of trial design, running and oversight. This research explored the induction and training of PPI Contributors joining trial oversight committees and was used to update the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London's (MRC CTU at UCL) induction pack for new PPI Contributors. METHODS: Published and unpublished materials provided by other CTUs and research organisations on training for PPI Contributors on oversight committees were reviewed, with themes then triangulated to identify the most common topics covered in induction training. A face-to-face workshop with PPI Contributors from the MRC CTU at UCL reviewed a draft updated Induction Pack. Findings from these discussions were incorporated into a revised induction pack which was then re-reviewed by the workshop attendees. RESULTS: No published literature on this subject was found. However, several common themes were identified from unpublished materials. Workshop attendees agreed with most of the themes suggested in the initial draft pack based on the literature search and also provided a number of additional topics for discussion. CONCLUSIONS: There is very little consistency in the induction of PPI Contributors on oversight committees. Whilst most local guidance explains the general role of a PPI Contributor, more context and background of the particular trial needs to be provided to allow for adequate induction of new committee members. The Induction Pack created provides a framework upon which trial managers can build a full picture of their study.

Clinical Trials Units are encouraged to integrate Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) into all aspects of their trials. This research explored the induction and training of PPI Contributors (e.g. patients, carers and members of the public) joining trial oversight committees. These committees regularly review trial progress and ensure participant safety. PPI Contributors sit on the committees to provide important guidance and advice on what the trial is like for a participant taking part.We looked at existing materials and research to find out what is already in use and how useful PPI Contributors felt it may be. We also held a workshop with existing PPI Contributors who had experience of participating in trials and sitting on oversight committees to find out what information they felt would be useful during the induction of a new member.Our research was used to create an induction pack for new PPI Contributors at the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London (MRC CTU at UCL). We have made this resource available to all researchers and in this report we describe how it was created.

Can a Compact Pre-Filled Auto-Disable Injection System (cPAD) Save Costs for DTP-HepB-Hib Vaccine as Compared with Single-Dose (SDV) and Multi-Dose Vials (MDV)? Evidence from Cambodia, Ghana, and Peru.

BACKGROUND: A compact pre-filled auto-disable injection (cPAD) presentation is being developed for the fully liquid pentavalent DTP-HepB-Hib vaccine. A cost analysis (CA) to compare this presentation with the presently used single-dose vial (SDV) and multi-dose vial (MDV) was conducted in Cambodia, Ghana, and Peru. METHODOLOGY: The CA included the development of an excel-based costing model and considered the costs of vaccine, safe injection equipment, procurement, storage, transport and distribution, vaccine administration by health staff, medical waste management, start-up activities, as well as coverage, birth cohort, vaccine, and safe injection equipment wastage rates. The outcome was the change in cost per pentavalent fully immunized child (PFIC) for a switch to cPAD. Field visits to health facilities, and interviews with key informants from immunization services and regulatory authorities, were conducted to collect data and to test the costing model in country context. Cost data were also obtained from manufacturers, published price lists, and author estimates. A sensitivity analysis (SA) was conducted to explore possible variations in values of data collected. RESULTS: Based on vaccine price trends estimated for 2016, cPAD is less costly in Ghana [incremental cost per PFIC: $US-0.59 (-6.46 %)] than the current presentation (ten-dose MDV) and in Peru (SDV): $US-0.89 (-7.14 %). In Cambodia, cPAD is more costly than SDV: $US+0.33 (+3.90 %). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The most significant cost item per PFIC is the vaccine (reflecting wastage rates) in all presentations. The dominance of the vaccine price per dose and, to a lesser extent, the wastage rates in the incremental cost per PFIC show potential to simplify future analyses. Other relevant considerations at country level for a change of presentation include the potential for improved safety with cPAD, planned introduction of other vaccines, environmental and safety issues, and financial sustainability.