Cost effectiveness analysis of elementary school-located vaccination against influenza-Results from a randomized controlled trial

Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, CA, USA. Electronic address: .
Vaccine (Impact Factor: 3.62). 03/2013; 31(17). DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.02.052
Source: PubMed


School-located vaccination against influenza (SLV-I) has the potential to improve current suboptimal influenza immunization coverage for U.S. school-aged children. However, little is known about SLV-I's cost-effectiveness. The objective of this study is to establish the cost-effectiveness of SLV-I based on a two-year community-based randomized controlled trial (Year 1: 2009-2010 vaccination season, an unusual H1N1 pandemic influenza season, and Year 2: 2010-2011, a more typical influenza season).

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on a two-year randomized controlled trial of a Western New York SLV-I program. SLV-I clinics were offered in 21 intervention elementary schools (Year 1 n = 9,027; Year 2 n = 9,145 children) with standard-of-care (no SLV-I) in control schools (Year 1 n = 4,534 (10 schools); Year 2 n = 4,796 children (11 schools)). We estimated the cost-per-vaccinated child, by dividing the incremental cost of the intervention by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the number of additionally vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools).

In Years 1 and 2, respectively, the effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 11.2 and 12.0 percentage points higher in intervention (40.7 % and 40.4 %) than control schools. In year 2, the cost-per-vaccinated child excluding vaccine purchase ($59.88 in 2010 US $) consisted of three component costs: (A) the school costs ($8.25); (B) the project coordination costs ($32.33); and (C) the vendor costs excluding vaccine purchase ($16.68), summed through Monte Carlo simulation. Compared to Year 1, the two component costs (A) and (C) decreased, while the component cost (B) increased in Year 2. The cost-per-vaccinated child, excluding vaccine purchase, was $59.73 (Year 1) and $59.88 (Year 2, statistically indistinguishable from Year 1), higher than the published cost of providing influenza vaccination in medical practices ($39.54). However, taking indirect costs (e.g., averted parental costs to visit medical practices) into account, vaccination was less costly in SLV-I ($23.96 in Year 1, $24.07 in Year 2) than in medical practices.

Our two-year trial's findings reinforced the evidence to support SLV-I as a potentially favorable system to increase childhood influenza vaccination rates in a cost-efficient way. Increased efficiencies in SLV-I are needed for a sustainable and scalable SLV-I program.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Influenza vaccination coverage for U.S. school-aged children is below the 80% national goal. Primary care practices may not have the capacity to vaccinate all children during influenza vaccination season. No real-world models of school-located seasonal influenza (SLV-I) programs have been tested. Determine the feasibility, sustainability, and impact of an SLV-I program providing influenza vaccination to elementary school children during the school day. In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial of SLV-I during two vaccination seasons, schools were randomly assigned to SLV-I versus standard of care. Seasonal influenza vaccine receipt, as recorded in the state immunization information system (IIS), was measured. Intervention and control schools were located in a single western New York county. Participation (intervention or control) included the sole urban school district and suburban districts (five in Year 1, four in Year 2). After gathering parental consent and insurance information, live attenuated and inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines were offered in elementary schools during the school day. Data on receipt of ≥1 seasonal influenza vaccination in Year 1 (2009-2010) and Year 2 (2010-2011) were collected on all student grades K through 5 at intervention and control schools from the IIS in the Spring of 2010 and 2011, respectively. Additionally, coverage achieved through SLV-I was compared to coverage of children vaccinated elsewhere. Preliminary data analysis for Year 1 occurred in Spring 2010; final quantitative analysis for both years was completed in late Fall 2012. Results are shown for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, respectively: Children enrolled in suburban SLV-I versus control schools had vaccination coverage of 47% vs 36%, and 52% vs 36% (p<0.0001 both years). In urban areas, coverage was 36% vs 26%, and 31% vs 25% (p<0.001 both years). On multilevel logistic analysis with three nested levels (student, school, school district) during both vaccination seasons, children were more likely to be vaccinated in SLV-I versus control schools; ORs were 1.6 (95% CI=1.4, 1.9; p<0.001) and 1.5 (95% CI=1.3, 1.8; p<0.001). Delivering influenza vaccine during school is a promising approach to improving pediatric influenza vaccination coverage. ClinicalTrials.govNCT01224301.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2014 · American journal of preventive medicine
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background There continues to be a need for increases in adult vaccination rates, especially among those working in environments which may easily become communicable disease outbreak centers, such as school employees in the school environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate why rural Utah school employees were non-compliant with the influenza and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines, as well as to identify their views on mandatory vaccination policies. Methods A questionnaire was distributed to all school employees in a rural Utah school district. Data analysis included frequencies and measures of central tendency and dispersion for quantitative items and theme identification for qualitative items. Results Only 51% of school employees were adequately vaccinated for influenza. Reasons for noncompliance with the influenza vaccine included inconvenience, lack of perceived need, and questionable vaccine efficacy. There were 39.3% school employees who had not received an MMR during adulthood, which was commonly attributed to lack of knowledge regarding the need for this vaccine. Almost half (45.7%) of school employees believed a mandatory vaccination policy should be instituted, although 24.2% of school employees were opposed to mandatory adult vaccination policies. Reasons for opposing vaccination mandates included violation of personal choice, lack of perceived vaccination safety and efficacy, lack of perceived need for adult vaccines, and vaccine cost. Conclusions Suboptimal vaccination rates of school employees may negatively affect the health and well-being of individuals in the school environment. School employees report a variety of beliefs regarding the influenza and MMR vaccines. While over half of school employees support mandatory vaccination policies for adults working in the school environment, those opposing such a policy report concerns regarding violation of personal choice. Public health officials and school administrators should coordinate efforts to increase vaccination rates among adults in the school environment.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2014 · Vaccine
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pharmacoeconomic analyses are performed preferentially in developed countries where there is an imperative to obtain “value for money” and to achieve cost-effectiveness. Such analyses are performed in low-income/developing countries and middle-income countries, partly to save scarce resources but also to improve the overall economic outlook, promote productivity gains, and foster further investment in vaccination. Analyses appear to be performed preferentially for therapeutic products as opposed to vaccines, but this may change as the impact of applying the results of pharmacoeconomic analyses of vaccines are measured and quantified.
    Preview · Article · Sep 2014 · Cocuk Enfeksiyon Dergisi
Show more