Table 2 Cost analyses of vaccination programs for healthcare workers
From: Health economics of rubella: a systematic review to assess the value of rubella vaccination
First author [Reference] | Stover [[17]] | Ferson [[18]] | Celikbas [[19]] | Alp [[20]] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Country | USA | Australia | Turkey | Turkey |
Year | 1994 | 1994 | 2006 | 2012 |
WB income group | High | High | Upper middle | Upper middle |
Comparators | 1. Screen & vaccinate | 1. Vaccinate all | 1. Screen & vaccinate | 1. Screen & vaccinate |
| Â | 2. Blind vaccination | 2. Vaccinate if no disease history | 2. Blind vaccination | 2. Blind vaccination |
| Â | Â | 3. Test if no disease history then vaccinate | Â | Â |
| Â | Â | 4. Test all and vaccinate | Â | Â |
Perspective | Payer* | Payer* | Payer* | Payer* |
Cost components measured | Vaccine; laboratory; employee health services | Vaccine; venipuncture; laboratory consumables; personnel (serology) | Vaccine; serology | Vaccine; serology |
Method of cost estimation | Micro-costing | Micro-costing | Micro-costing | Micro-costing |
Time period for costing | One-time vaccination | One-time vaccination | One-time vaccination | One-time vaccination |
Discounting (Rate) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Results (2012 US$) | 1. $24 | 1. $5 – $37 | 1. $14 | 1. $13 |
|  | 2. $71 | 2. $5 – $28 | 2. $18 | 2. $9 |
|  |  | 3. $5 – $28 |  |  |
| Â | Â | 4. $9 - $42 | Â | Â |
Stated conclusion | Screen and vaccinate preferable | A combination if screening and history is preferable | Blind vaccination modestly increased costs | Blind vaccination was preferable |
Sponsor | NR | NR | TSRC | None |