Jeremy A Lauer’s research while affiliated with University of Strathclyde and other places

Despite the considerable health and economic burden of disability in the South Asian (SA) region, there is limited evidence of impairments and disabilities prevalence and the need for Assistive Technologies (ATs). This scoping review aims to synthesise the evidence of the impairments and disabilities in SA countries. This review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. EBSCOhost, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for original research articles from SA countries. In this study, impairment and disability refer to functional limitations restricting individuals from performing activities, including visual, hearing, speaking, cognitive, mobility, and self-care difficulties. The review included full-text, English-language articles addressing any impairment and disability, without restrictions on publication date. This review identified 105 articles distributed over the six impairment and disability domains: visual, hearing, mobility, self-care, speaking, and cognitive. Most evidence originated from India (50.5%) and focused on visual impairments (53.3%). The review identified that heterogeneity in methodologies, case identification definitions, and study settings contributed to variations in prevalence estimation and restricted the comparability within and across countries. Besides, the uneven distribution of studies across countries suggests varying inclinations of countries toward specific impairment and disability domains. The review identified variations in prevalence due to differences in methodologies, definitions, and contexts. The review also identified the uneven distribution of studies, limited evidence on ATs, reliance on self-reported data, and lack of nationally representative research. Future research should use standardised case identification and evidence-based approaches to enhance comparability and minimise response biases.

For vaccine development and adoption decisions, the ‘Full Value of Vaccine Assessment’ (FVVA) framework has been proposed by the WHO to expand the range of evidence available to support the prioritization of candidate vaccines for investment and eventual uptake by low- and middle-income countries. Recent applications of the FVVA framework have already shown benefits. Building on the success of these applications, we see important new opportunities to maximize the future utility of FVVAs to country and global stakeholders and provide a proof-of-concept for analyses in other areas of disease control and prevention. These opportunities include the following: (1) FVVA producers should aim to create evidence that explicitly meets the needs of multiple key FVVA consumers, (2) the WHO and other key stakeholders should develop standardized methodologies for FVVAs, as well as guidance for how different stakeholders can explicitly reflect their values within the FVVA framework, and (3) the WHO should convene experts to further develop and prioritize the research agenda for outcomes and benefits relevant to the FVVA and elucidate methodological approaches and opportunities for standardization not only for less well-established benefits, but also for any relevant research gaps. We encourage FVVA stakeholders to engage with these opportunities.

Background: Malaria remains a major public health problem. While globally malaria mortality affects predominantly young children, clinical malaria affects all age groups throughout life. Malaria not only threatens health but also child education and adult productivity while burdening government budgets and economic development. Increased investments in malaria control can contribute to reduce this burden but have an opportunity cost for the economy. Quantifying the net economic value of investing in malaria can encourage political and financial commitment. Methods: We adapted an existing macroeconomic model to simulate the effects of reducing malaria on the gross domestic product of 26 high burden countries while accounting for the opportunity costs of increased investments in malaria. We compared two scenarios differing in their level of malaria investment and associated burden reduction: sustaining malaria control at 2015 intervention coverage levels, time at which coverage levels reached their historic peak and scaling-up coverage to reach the 2030 global burden reduction targets. We incorporated the effects that reduced malaria in children and young adolescents may have on the productivity of working adults and on the future size of the labour force augmented by educational returns, skills, and experience. We calibrated the model using estimates from linked epidemiologic and costing models on these same scenarios and from published country-specific macroeconomic data. Results: Scaling-up malaria control could produce a dividend of US$152 billion in the modelled countries, equivalent to 0.17% of total GDP projected over the study period across the 26 countries. Assuming a larger share of malaria investments is paid out from domestic savings, the dividend would be smaller but still significant, ranging between 0.10% and 0.14% of total projected GDP. Annual GDP gains were estimated to increase over time. Lower income and higher burden countries would experience higher gains. Conclusion: Intensified malaria control can produce a multiplied return despite the opportunity cost of greater investments.

Background Several economic obstacles can deter the development and use of vaccines. This can lead to limited product options for some diseases, delays in new product development, and inequitable access to vaccines. Although seemingly distinct, these obstacles are actually interrelated and therefore need to be addressed through a single over-arching strategy encompassing all stakeholders. Methods To help overcome these obstacles, we propose a new approach, the Full Value of Vaccines Assessments (FVVA) framework, to guide the assessment and communication of the value of a vaccine. The FVVA framework is designed to facilitate alignment across key stakeholders and to enhance decision-making around investment in vaccine development, policy-making, procurement, and introduction, particularly for vaccines intended for use in low- and middle-income countries. Results The FVVA framework has three key elements. First, to enhance assessment , existing value-assessment methods and tools are adapted to include broader benefits of vaccines as well as opportunity costs borne by stakeholders. Second, to improve decision-making , a deliberative process is required to recognize the agency of stakeholders and to ensure country ownership of decision-making and priority setting. Third, the FVVA framework provides a consistent and evidence-based approach that facilitates communication about the full value of vaccines, helping to enhance alignment and coordination across diverse stakeholders. Conclusions The FVVA framework provides guidance for stakeholders organizing global-level efforts to promote investment in vaccines that are priorities for LMICs. By providing a more holistic view of the benefits of vaccines, its application also has the potential to encourage greater take-up by countries, thereby leading to more sustainable and equitable impacts of vaccines and immunization programmes.

Background: World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO CHOICE) has been a programme of the WHO for 20 years. In this latest update, we present for the first time a cross-programme analysis of the comparative cost-effectiveness of 479 intervention scenarios across 20 disease programmes and risk factors. Methods: This analysis follows the standard WHO CHOICE approach to generalized cost-effectiveness analysis applied to two regions, Eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The scope of the analysis is all interventions included in programme specific WHO CHOICE analyses, using WHO treatment guidelines for major disease areas as the foundation. Costs are measured in 2010 international dollars, and benefits modelled beginning in 2010, or the nearest year for which validated data was available, both for a period of 100 years. Results: Across both regions included in the analysis, interventions span multiple orders of magnitude in terms of cost-effectiveness ratios. A health benefit package optimized through a value for money lens incorporates interventions responding to all of the main drivers of disease burden. Interventions delivered through first level clinical and non-clinical services represent the majority of the high impact cost-effective interventions. Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness is one important criterion when selecting health interventions for benefit packages to progress towards universal health coverage (UHC), but it is not the only criterion and all calculations should be adapted to the local context. To support country decision-makers, WHO CHOICE has developed a downloadable tool to support the development of data for this criterion.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (CHOICE) programme has been a global leader in the field of economic evaluation, specifically cost-effectiveness analysis for almost 20 years. WHO-CHOICE takes a "generalized" approach to cost-effectiveness analysis that can be seen as a quantitative assessment of current and future efficiency within a health system. This supports priority setting processes, ensuring that health stewards know how to spend resources in order to achieve the highest health gain as one consideration in strategic planning. This approach is unique in the global health landscape. This paper provides an overview of the methodological approach, updates to analytic framework over the past 10 years, and the added value of the WHO-CHOICE approach in supporting decision makers as they aim to use limited health resources to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.