From: Health economics of rubella: a systematic review to assess the value of rubella vaccination
First author [Reference] | Golden [[32]] | Kommu [[33]] | Irons [[34]] |
---|---|---|---|
Country | Israel | Barbados | Caribbean |
Year | 1984 | 1998 | 2000 |
WB income group | High | High | Upper-middle |
Comparators | 1. Vaccinate all 1 - 12-yr-olds | 1. Rubella elimination initiative | 1. Initiative to interrupt rubella transmission |
 | 2. Vaccinate pubertal girls | 2. None | 2. None |
 | 3. Vaccinate adult females |  |  |
Perspective | Societal* | Payer* | Payer* |
Cost components measured | Laboratory tests; abortions; primary care; institutional care; lost work days; | NR | NR |
Method of cost estimation | Micro-costing | NR | NR |
Method of benefits estimation | Averted costs | NR | NR |
Time period for costs and benefits | 10 years | 15 years | 20 years |
Discounting (Rate) | Yes (10%) | NR | NR |
Results—Benefit-cost ratio | 1. 1 | 1. 4.7 | 1. 13.3 |
 | 2. 2 | 2. – | 2. – |
 | 3. Negative |  |  |
Stated conclusion | Vaccination of children and pubertal girls is preferable | The rubella elimination program using MMR was cost-beneficial | The rubella elimination program using MMR was cost-beneficial |
Sponsor | NR | NR | NR |