Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Digital Health Technology for Improving the Uptake of Vaccination Programs: Systematic Review.

Yingcheng Wang, Ginenus Fekadu, Joyce Hoi-Sze You
Author Information
  1. Yingcheng Wang: School of Pharmacy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, China (Hong Kong). ORCID
  2. Ginenus Fekadu: School of Pharmacy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, China (Hong Kong). ORCID
  3. Joyce Hoi-Sze You: School of Pharmacy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, China (Hong Kong). ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the most effective strategy to prevent infectious diseases, yet vaccination coverage has not reached the target level. To promote vaccination uptake, digital health interventions (DHIs) have been used in various vaccination programs.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness analyses of DHIs for the improvement of the uptake of vaccination programs.
METHODS: A literature review was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCOhost), Center for Review and Dissemination, and Institute for IEEE Xplore up to October 2022. Health economic evaluations that met the following inclusion criteria were included: (1) adult or pediatric vaccination programs; (2) interventions delivered through digital technology; (3) full-scale health economic analyses including cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, or cost-consequence analyses; and (4) evaluations conducted by model-based or trial-based analyses. The quality of each included study was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).
RESULTS: The systematic review included 7 studies. Four of the cost-effectiveness studies were conducted by model-based analyses, and 3 were trial-based analyses. One study reported the additional cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, whereas 6 studies reported the additional cost per individual vaccinated (or return case). The vaccines targeted the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, influenza vaccination, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, and children immunization at different ages. The DHIs were delivered by television campaign, web-based decision aid, SMS text message, telephone, and computer-generated recall letters. The studies were classified as very good (n=5) and good (n=2) qualities. One study concluded that the DHI was cost-saving, and 6 studies concluded that the DHI was cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first systematic review on cost-effectiveness analyses of DHIs to improve vaccination uptake. All included studies have good to very good quality on study assessment and reported the DHIs to be cost-saving or cost-effective in the improvement of vaccination uptake.

Keywords

References

  1. Pediatrics. 2014 Aug;134(2):e346-53 [PMID: 25002671]
  2. J Adolesc Health. 2016 Oct;59(4S):S40-S48 [PMID: 27664595]
  3. Health Serv Res. 2010 Oct;45(5 Pt 1):1287-309 [PMID: 20579128]
  4. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2020 Nov 23;275:67-71 [PMID: 33227742]
  5. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Sep 21;8(9):e20356 [PMID: 32955455]
  6. Am J Health Promot. 2022 Feb;36(2):296-300 [PMID: 34814765]
  7. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Oct 9;21(10):e13263 [PMID: 31593543]
  8. Value Health. 2015 Jul;18(5):622-30 [PMID: 26297090]
  9. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1997 Jan;16(1):28-33 [PMID: 9002097]
  10. Sci Rep. 2022 Sep 28;12(1):16256 [PMID: 36171245]
  11. Vaccine. 2020 Sep 29;38(42):6600-6608 [PMID: 32788139]
  12. Value Health. 2021 Jan;24(1):78-85 [PMID: 33431157]
  13. JAMA Pediatr. 2021 Mar 1;175(3):305-307 [PMID: 33284331]
  14. Pediatrics. 1998 Apr;101(4):E3 [PMID: 9521970]
  15. Vaccine. 2016 Sep 22;34(41):4998-5004 [PMID: 27576077]
  16. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097 [PMID: 19621072]
  17. Pediatrics. 2021 Jul;148(1): [PMID: 33858983]
  18. BMC Public Health. 2018 Jan 16;18(1):144 [PMID: 29338782]
  19. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [PMID: 33782057]
  20. Pediatrics. 2020 Dec;146(6): [PMID: 33199466]
  21. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(1):72-82 [PMID: 25483518]
  22. Br J Gen Pract. 2014 Aug;64(625):e493-9 [PMID: 25071062]
  23. Value Health. 2022 Jan;25(1):10-31 [PMID: 35031088]
  24. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 29;12(3):e0173600 [PMID: 28355231]
  25. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):107-15 [PMID: 25481455]
  26. Vaccine. 2013 Apr 19;31(17):2156-64 [PMID: 23499607]
  27. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 24;14(10):e0224170 [PMID: 31648271]
  28. Pediatrics. 2000 Jul;106(1 Pt 2):177-83 [PMID: 10888689]
  29. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Oct 29;70(43):1495-1500 [PMID: 34710074]
  30. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 18;1:CD003941 [PMID: 29342498]
  31. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013 Aug;9(8):1763-73 [PMID: 23584253]
  32. Med Decis Making. 2023 Jan;43(1):125-138 [PMID: 36259354]
  33. Vaccine. 2013 Dec 5;31(50):6003-10 [PMID: 24148574]
  34. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Nov 1;35(11):2124-2132 [PMID: 27733424]

MeSH Term

Adult
Child
Humans
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Digital Technology
Immunization
Vaccination