We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
Vaccines are different: A systematic review of budget impact analyses of vaccines.
Vaccine 2017 May 16
INTRODUCTION: Several countries require manufacturers to present a budget impact analysis (BIA), together with a cost-effectiveness analysis, to support national funding requests. However, guidelines for conducting BIA of vaccines are scarce.
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the methodological approaches used in published budget impact analysis (BIA) of vaccines, discussing specific methodological issues related to vaccines.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This systematic review of the literature on BIA of vaccines was carried out in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination - CRD guidelines. We searched multiple databases: MedLine, Embase, Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde (BVS), Cochrane Library, DARE Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), HTA Database (via Centre for Reviews and Dissemination - CRD), and grey literature. Two researchers, working independently, selected the studies and extracted the data. The methodology quality of individual studies was assessed using the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. A qualitative narrative synthesis was conducted.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were reviewed. The most frequently evaluated vaccines were pneumococcal (41%), influenza (23%) and rotavirus (18%). The target population was stated in 21 studies (95%) and the perspective was clear in 20 (91%). Only 36% reported the calculations used to complete the BIA, 27% informed the total and disaggregated costs for each time period, and 9% showed the change in resource use for each time period. More than half of the studies (55%, n=12) reported less than 50% of the items recommended in the checklist.
CONCLUSIONS: The production of BIA of vaccines has increased from 2009. The report of the methodological steps was unsatisfactory, making it difficult to assess the validity of the results presented. Vaccines specific issues should be discussed in international guidelines for BIA of vaccines, to improve the quality of the studies.
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the methodological approaches used in published budget impact analysis (BIA) of vaccines, discussing specific methodological issues related to vaccines.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This systematic review of the literature on BIA of vaccines was carried out in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination - CRD guidelines. We searched multiple databases: MedLine, Embase, Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde (BVS), Cochrane Library, DARE Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), HTA Database (via Centre for Reviews and Dissemination - CRD), and grey literature. Two researchers, working independently, selected the studies and extracted the data. The methodology quality of individual studies was assessed using the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. A qualitative narrative synthesis was conducted.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were reviewed. The most frequently evaluated vaccines were pneumococcal (41%), influenza (23%) and rotavirus (18%). The target population was stated in 21 studies (95%) and the perspective was clear in 20 (91%). Only 36% reported the calculations used to complete the BIA, 27% informed the total and disaggregated costs for each time period, and 9% showed the change in resource use for each time period. More than half of the studies (55%, n=12) reported less than 50% of the items recommended in the checklist.
CONCLUSIONS: The production of BIA of vaccines has increased from 2009. The report of the methodological steps was unsatisfactory, making it difficult to assess the validity of the results presented. Vaccines specific issues should be discussed in international guidelines for BIA of vaccines, to improve the quality of the studies.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app