Search

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing universal maternal pertussis immunisation under the national vaccine programme in Thailand.We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective to compare maternal vaccination with (1) TdaP vaccine, (2) Td vaccine and aP vaccine, and (3) Td vaccine only. We constructed two decision-tree models with Markov elements, each following a different clinical pathway, to allow us to examine structural uncertainty. Costs were converted to 2021 Thai Baht (THB) and a discount rate of 3% was applied to health and cost outcomes, with sensitivity analysis at 0% and 6%. Parameter uncertainty was investigated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, with expected value of perfect information analysis.Maternal pertussis vaccination would avert 27 cases and up to one death per year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adding aP to the maternal immunisation schedule is 2,184,025 THB/QALY and the ICER for replacing maternal Td vaccination with TdaP is 3,198,101 THB/QALY. Maternal pertussis vaccination only becomes favourable in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis at cost-effectiveness thresholds above 6,000,000 THB/QALY, far above the Thai threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY. If incidence is less than 397 cases per 100,000, maternal pertussis vaccination will not be cost-effective in Thailand, within the plausible range for vaccine effectiveness and probability of hospitalisation. Budget impact is dominated by vaccination costs, which represent 12% and 18% of the 2021 national vaccine programme budget for introducing aP vaccine or for switching Td with TdaP vaccine, respectively.We have found that maternal pertussis immunisation is not cost-effective in Thailand. Although there may be substantial under-reporting of pertussis cases, comparison with hospital data suggests that most under-reported cases are not hospitalised and therefore have negligible impact on our results. However, considerations such as affordability and local manufacturing may also be important for national immunisation programme decision-making.

Almost all preference-based measures (PBMs) have been developed in Western countries, with none having been formulated in Asian countries. In this study, we construct a new generic PBM based on concept elicitation using interview surveys in East and Southeast Asian countries and qualitative analysis.This cross-sectional study included 225 adults recruited from 9 East and Southeast Asian countries or regions (Indonesia, Japan, Korea, mainland China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand). Trained interviewers conducted semistructured interviews with 25 participants from the general population of each country/region. Qualitative data were analyzed using a content analysis approach. The selection of items was determined based on interview surveys and team member discussions. The description of items was considered based on a detailed qualitative analysis of the interview survey.A new region-specific PBM-the Asia PBM 7 dimensions instrument-was designed. It reflects East and Southeast Asian values and comprises 7 items: pain, mental health, energy, mobility, work/school, interpersonal interactions, and burden to others.The new region-specific instrument is one of the first PBMs developed in the context of non-Western countries. The Asia PBM 7 dimensions contains 7 items that address the core concepts of health-related quality of life that are deemed important based on East and Southeast Asian health concepts.

Economic analyses of healthcare interventions are an important consideration in evidence-based policymaking. A key component of such analyses is the costs of interventions, for which most are familiar with using budgets and expenditures. However, economic theory states that the true value of a good/service is the value of the next best alternative forgone as a result of using the resource and therefore observed prices or charges do not necessarily reflect the true economic value of resources. To address this, economic costs are a fundamental concept within (health) economics. Crucially, they are intended to reflect the resources’ opportunity costs (the forgone opportunity to use those resources for another purpose) and they are based on the value of the resource's next-best alternative use that has been forgone. This is a broader conceptualization of a resource’s value than its financial cost and recognizes that resources can have a value that may not be fully captured by their market price and that by using a resource it makes it unavailable for productive use elsewhere. Importantly, economic costs are preferred over financial costs for any health economic analyses aimed at informing decisions regarding the optimum allocation of the limited/competing resources available for healthcare (such as health economic evaluations), and they are also important when considering the replicability and sustainability of healthcare interventions. However, despite this, economic costs and the reasons why they are used is an area that can be misunderstood by professionals without an economic background. In this paper, we outline to a broader audience the principles behind economic costs and when and why they should be used within health economic analyses. We highlight that the difference between financial and economic costs and what adjustments are needed within cost calculations will be influenced by the context of the study, the perspective, and the objective.

IntroductionPhysical inactivity increases the risks of several common yet serious non-communicable diseases, costing a tremendous amount of health expenditure globally. This study aimed to estimate the association between health costs and physical inactivity in Thailand.MethodsData from the Physical Activity at Work cluster randomized controlled trial participants with valid objective physical activity data were extracted. Health costs were collected using the Health and Welfare Survey and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire and were categorized into past-month outpatient illness, past-year inpatient illness, and past-week presenteeism and absenteeism. Time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was used to determine the activity level according to the current guideline (i.e., ≥150 minutes moderate-intensity or ≥75 minutes vigorous-intensity equivalent physical activity per week). The primary analysis evaluated the association between direct cost (treatment and travel costs) and societal cost (direct cost plus absenteeism due to the illness) of past-month outpatient illness and physical inactivity using a two-part model.ResultsIn total, 277 participants with a mean age of 38.7 were included. Average direct and societal cost due to past-month outpatient illness were 146 THB (3.99 USD) (SD = 647 THB) and 457 THB (12.5 USD) (SD = 1390 THB), respectively. Compared to active participants, direct and societal cost of past-month outpatient illness were 153 THB (4.18 USD) (95%CI: –54.7 to 360 THB) and 426 THB (11.7 USD) (95%CI: 23.3 to 829 THB) higher in physically inactive individuals, respectively, adjusted for covariates. The additional societal cost of past-month outpatient illness was 145% higher in physically inactive participants compared to active participants. On the other hand, there was no significant association in direct and societal cost of past-year inpatient illness nor past-week indirect costs between physically active and non-active participants.DiscussionResults were similar to recent findings in different countries. However, the findings should be generalized with caution due to the small sample size and potential bias from reverse causation. Future research is crucial for clarifying the health costs of physical inactivity in Thailand and other countries.

Summary Background India faces a high burden of diabetes and hypertension. Currently, there is a dearth of economic evidence about screening programmes, affected age groups, and frequency of screening for these diseases in Indian settings. We assessed the cost effectiveness of population-based screening for diabetes and hypertension compared with current practice in India for different scenarios, according to type of screening test, population age group, and pattern of health-care use. Methods We used a hybrid decision model (decision tree and Markov model) to estimate the lifetime costs and consequences from a societal perspective. A meta-analysis was done to assess the effectiveness of population-based screening. Primary data were collected from two Indian states (Haryana and Tamil Nadu) to assess the cost of screening. The data from the National Health System Cost Database and the Costing of Health Services in India study were used to determine the health system cost of diagnostic tests and cost of treating diabetes or hypertension and their complications. A total of 962 patients were recruited to assess out-of-pocket expenditure and quality of life. Parameter uncertainty was evaluated using univariate and multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Finally, we estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with alternative scenarios of scaling up primary health care through a health and wellness centre programme for the treatment of diabetes and hypertension. Findings The incremental cost per QALY gained across various strategies for population-based screening for diabetes and hypertension ranged from US$0·02 million to $0·03 million. At the current pattern of health services use, none of the screening strategies of annual screening, screening every 3 years, and screening every 5 years was cost-effective at a threshold of 1-time per capita gross domestic product in India. In the scenario in which health and wellness centres provided primary care to 20% of patients who were newly diagnosed with uncomplicated diabetes or hypertension, screening the group aged between 30 and 65 years every 5 years or 3 years for either diabetes, hypertension, or a comorbid state (both diabetes and hypertension) became cost-effective. If the share of treatment for patients with newly diagnosed uncomplicated diabetes or hypertension at health and wellness centres increases to 70%, from the existing 4% at subcentres and primary health centres, annual population-based screening becomes a cost saving strategy. Interpretation Population-based screening for diabetes and hypertension in India could potentially reduce time to diagnosis and treatment and be cost-effective if it is linked to comprehensive primary health care through health and wellness centres for provision of treatment to patients who screen positive. Funding Department of Health Research, Government of India.

Background Out-patient department (OPD) is a crucial component of the healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries including Thailand. A considerable impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its control measures, especially the lockdown, on utilisation of OPD services was expected. This study thus aims to estimate the pattern of OPD utilisation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand including overall utilisation and within each sub-groups including diagnostic group, age group, and health region. Methods This study was a secondary data analysis of aggregated outpatient data from patients covered under the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) in Thailand over a 4-year period (2017–2020). Interrupted time series analyses and segmented Quasi-Poisson regression were used to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the overall OPD utilisation including the impact on each diagnostic group, age groups, health regions, and provinces. Results Analysis of 845,344,946 OPD visits in this study showed a seasonal pattern and increasing trend in monthly OPD visits before the COVID-19 pandemic. A 28% (rate ratio (RR) 0.718, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.631–0.819) and 11% (RR 0.890, 95% CI: 0.811–0.977) reduction in OPD visits was observed during the lockdown and post-lockdown periods, respectively, when compared to the pre-lockdown period. Diseases of respiratory system were most affected with a RR of 0.411 (95% CI: 0.320–0.527), while the number of visits for non-communicable diseases (ICD-10: E00–E90, I00–I99) and elderly (> 60 years) dropped slightly. The post-lockdown trend in monthly OPD visits gradually increased to the pre-pandemic levels in most groups. Conclusions Thailand’s OPD utilisation rate during the COVID-19 lockdown decreased in some diseases, but the service for certain group of patients appeared to remain available. After the COVID-19 lockdown, the rate returned to the pre-pandemic level in a timely manner. Equipped with a knowledge of OPD utilisation pattern during COVID-19 based on a national real-world database could aid with a better preparation of healthcare system for future pandemics.

Background: Globally, there is increasing interest in the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) to inform health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement decision-making. Using current practices and case studies shared by eleven health systems in Asia, a non-binding guidance that seeks to align practices for generating and using RWD/RWE for decision-making in Asia was developed by the REAL World Evidence In ASia for HEalth Technology Assessment in Reimbursement (REALISE) Working Group, addressing a current gap and needs among HTA users and generators. Methods: The guidance document was developed over two face-to-face workshops, in addition to an online survey, a face-to-face interview and pragmatic search of literature. The specific focus was on what, where and how to collect RWD/ RWE. Results: All 11 REALISE member jurisdictions participated in the online survey and the first in-person workshop, 10 participated in the second in-person workshop, and 8 participated in the in-depth face-to-face interviews. The guidance document was iteratively reviewed by all working group members and the International Advisory Panel. There was substantial variation in: (a) sources and types of RWD being used in HTA; and (b) the relative importance and prioritization of RWE being used for policymaking. A list of national-level databases and other sources of RWD available in each country was compiled. A list of useful guidance on data collection, quality assurance and study design were also compiled. Conclusion: The REALISE guidance document serves to align the collection of better quality RWD and generation of reliable RWE to ultimately inform HTA in Asia.

Objectives Based on a real-world collaboration with innovators in applying early health economic modeling, we aimed to offer practical steps that health technology assessment (HTA) researchers and innovators can follow and promote the usage of early HTA among research and development (R&D) communities. Methods The HTA researcher was approached by the innovator to carry out an early HTA ahead of the first clinical trial of the technology, a soft robotic sock for poststroke patients. Early health economic modeling was selected to understand the potential value of the technology and to help uncover the information gap. Threshold analysis was used to identify the target product profiles. Value-of-information analysis was conducted to understand the uncertainties and the need for further research. Results Based on the expected price and clinical effectiveness by the innovator, the new technology was found to be cost-saving compared to the current practice. Risk reduction in deep vein thrombosis and ankle contracture, the incidence rate of ankle contracture, the compliance rate of the new technology, and utility scores were found to have high impacts on the value-for-money of the new technology. The value of information was low if the new technology can achieve the expected clinical effectiveness. A list of parameters was recommended for data collection in the impending clinical trial. Conclusions This work, based on a real-world collaboration, has illustrated that early health economic modeling can inform medical innovation development. We provided practical steps in order to achieve more efficient R&D investment in medical innovation moving forward.

Introduction Despite the documented benefits of using health technology assessments (HTA) to inform resource allocation in health care systems, HTA remains underused, especially in low- and middle-income countries. A survey of global health practitioners was conducted to reveal the top reasons (“excuses”) that they had heard from colleagues, policymakers or other stakeholders for not using HTA in their settings. Methods There were 193 respondents to the survey. Most responses were from individuals in research organisations (37%), ministries of health (27%) and other government agencies (14%). Participants came from Southeast Asia (40%), the Western Pacific (30%), Africa (15%), Europe (7%), the Americas (7%) and the Eastern Mediterranean region (2%). Results The top five reasons encountered by respondents related to lack of data, lack of technical skills for HTA, the technocratic nature of the work, the lack of explicit decision rules and the perception that HTA puts a “price on life”. Conclusions This study aimed to understand and address the top reasons for not using HTA. They fall into three categories: (1) misconceptions about HTA; (2) feasibility issues; and (3) values, attitudes and politics. Previous literature has shown that these reasons can be addressed when identified, and even imperfect HTA analyses can provide useful information to a decision-maker.

Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is accelerated by the widespread and often indiscriminate use of antimicrobials in humans, animals, and the environment. In 2015, the World Health Organization recognised AMR as one of the top ten global health threats, due to its potential to neutralise humanity’s advancements in western medicine by enabling the emergence of new strains of existing pathogens, many of which have no available treatments. Over the past decade, several countries, including those in low- and middle-income contexts, have started implementing interventions to tackle AMR. However, economic evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions remains weak. To address this evidence gap, we will conduct a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive summary on the value for money of different AMR interventions. Methods We aim to conduct a systematic literature review of all available economic evaluations on interventions addressing AMR and will provide a narrative synthesis of our findings. Systematic searches for relevant studies will be performed across all suitable databases as well as in grey literature sources such as unpublished studies, reports, and other relevant documents. All economic evaluation studies will be included as long as they report an economic outcome and have stated that the analysed intervention will reduce antimicrobial resistance or antimicrobial use in the abstract. Those studies reporting clinical endpoints alone will be excluded. Selection for final inclusion and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Discussion The review will be one of the first of its kind, and the most recent, to systematically review literature on the cost-effectiveness of AMR interventions, an important evidence gap in the economics of AMR. The findings will enable policy and decision-makers, particularly in resource-constrained settings, to better use available resources when selecting interventions to address AMR burdens, Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020190310

Public health emergencies (PHEs), such as the COVID-19 crisis, are threats to global health and public order. We recommend that countries bolster their PHE responses by investing in health technology assessment (HTA), defined as a systematic process of gathering pertinent information on and evaluating health technologies from a medical, economic, social and ethical standpoint. We present examples of how HTA organizations in low- and middle-income countries have adapted to supporting PHE-related decisions during COVID-19 and describe the ways HTA can help the response to a PHE. In turn, we advocate for HTA capacity to be further developed globally and for increased institutional acceptance of these methods as a building block for preparedness and response to future PHEs. Finally, the long-term potential of HTA in strengthening health systems and embedding confidence and transparency into scientific policy should be recognized.

Many countries seek to secure efficiency in health spending through establishing explicit priority setting institutions (PSIs). Since such institutions divert resources from frontline services which benefit patients directly, it is legitimate and reasonable to ask whether they are worth the money. We address this question by comparing, through simulation, the health benefits and costs from implementing two alternative funding approaches – one scenario in which an active PSI enables cost-effectiveness-threshold based funding decisions, and a counterfactual scenario where there is no PSI. We present indicative results for one dataset from the United Kingdom (published in 2015) and one from Malawi (published in 2018), which show that the threshold rule reliably resulted in decreased health system costs, improved health benefits, or both. Our model is implemented in Microsoft Excel and designed to be user-friendly, and both the model and a user guide are made publicly available, in order to enable others to parameterise the model based on the local setting. Although inevitably stylised, we believe that our modelling and results offer a valid perspective on the added value of explicit PSIs.

With vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) being introduced in countries across the world, policy makers are facing many practical considerations about how best to implement a vaccination programme. The supply of vaccines is insufficient for the global population, so decisions must be made as to which groups are prioritised for any vaccination and when. Furthermore, the aims of vaccination programmes will differ between countries, with some prioritising economic benefits that could stem from the relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions and others seeking simply to reduce the number of COVID-19 cases or deaths. This paper aims to share the experiences and lessons learned from conducting economic evaluations in Singapore and Thailand on hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines to provide a basis for other countries to develop their own contextualised economic evaluations, with particular focus on the key uncertainties, technical challenges, and characteristics that modellers should consider in partnership with key stakeholders. Which vaccines, vaccination strategies, and policy responses are most economically beneficial remains uncertain. It is therefore important for all governments to conduct their own analyses to inform local policy responses to COVID-19, including the implementation of COVID-19 vaccines in both the short and the long run. It is essential that such studies are designed, and ideally conducted, before vaccines are introduced so that policy decisions and implementation procedures are not delayed. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-021-00661-5.

COVID-19 vaccination certificates (CVCs) have played a key role in safe reopening of borders for international travel and trade, so understanding key stakeholder perceptions of enablers and barriers for their effective use is critical. The COVID-19 Vaccination Policy Research and Deci-sion-Support Initiative in Asia (CORESIA) was established to address policy questions related to CVCs. We conducted two online surveys, i.e., one for the public and one for health and non-health sector experts, from June to October 2021 in nine Asian countries. Descriptive analysis identified participants, enablers, and barriers. Most participants (78% public, 89% experts) accepted the use of CVCs, primarily to resume international travel (76%). Most respondents in both surveys wanted the minimum vaccination coverage to be 60% before CVCs were implemented nation-wide. Most of the public (82%) agreed to maintain existing non-pharmaceutical interventions, while most experts wanted risk-based testing and quarantine policy for incoming travellers (51%) and both digital and paper format CVCs (64%). Support for CVCs for international travel remains high in Asia. Recognising key enablers and barriers for effective use of CVCs from COVID-19 pandemic may help policymakers draft effective border policies for future epidemics.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought the need for regional collaboration on disease prevention and control to the fore. The review by Durrance-Bagale et al offers insights on the enablers, barriers and lessons learned from the experience of various regional initiatives. Translating these lessons into action, however, remains a challenge. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) planned to establish a regional centre for disease control; however, many factors have slowed the realisation of these efforts. Going forward, regional initiatives should be able to address the complexity of emerging infectious diseases through a One Health approach, assess the social and economic impact of diseases on the region and study the real-world effectiveness of regional collaborations. The initiatives should seek to be inclusive of stakeholders including those from the private sector and should identify innovative measures for financing. This advancement will enable regions such as ASEAN to effectively prepare for the next pandemic.

Background Alcohol use is one of the leading risk factors for premature death and disability. Screening, brief interventions and referral to treatment, as well as evidence-based psychosocial and pharmacological interventions, are important in reducing the burden of harmful alcohol use. While many reviews summarise evidence for specific interventions or populations, there has yet to be a comprehensive comparison of interventions. As such, this umbrella review aims to identify effective interventions for the prevention and treatment of harmful alcohol use, with consideration of applicability to low- and middle-income country contexts.Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO and the International HTA Database will be conducted from inception to September 2021. Selected articles will be systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of interventions for screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment, or treatment of harmful alcohol use. Title/abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment will be conducted by reviewers working independently and in duplicate, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Data extraction will be conducted using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute form, incorporating elements of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, and quality assessment will be conducted using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. Findings will be summarised qualitatively in text and tables, with a focus on summarising important considerations for policymakers and identifying gaps in the literature.Discussion Results from this study will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and through presentation to policymakers in Thailand.Systematic review registration This protocol is registered in PROSPERO, CRD42021275471.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA), a tool for priority setting, has emerged as a means of ensuring the sustainability of a Universal Health Coverage (UHC) system. However, setting up an effective HTA system poses multiple challenges and knowledge exchange can play a crucial role in helping countries achieve their UHC targets. This article reports the results of the discussion during a preconference session at the 2019 HTAsiaLink Conference, an annual gathering of HTA agencies in Asia, which supports knowledge transfer and exchange among HTA practitioners. As part of this discourse, 3 main HTA challenges were identified based on experiences of selected countries in Asia and Africa, namely Bhutan, Kenya, Thailand, and Zambia: availability of funding, building technical capacity, and achieving buy-in among stakeholders for successful translation of HTA research into UHC policy. The potential solutions identified through this South-South engagement included establishing a legal mandate for HTA, building local technical capacity through partnerships and enhancing strategic communication with stakeholders to increase awareness, among others. South-South Knowledge Exchange can therefore be instrumental in sharing lessons learned from common challenges and offer potential solutions to address capacity building initiatives for HTA in LMICs., Highlights • Health technology assessment is an effective tool for priority setting for countries seeking to achieve Universal Health Coverage. • Three of the main challenges faced by countries in institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment are limited funding, lack of technical capacity, and stakeholder engagement. • South-South knowledge exchange is a useful means of learning from peers to address challenges.

Adverse events and medical harm comprise major health concerns for people all over the world, including Thailand. The prevalence and burden of medical harm must always be monitored, and a voluntary database should not be used to represent national value. The purpose of this study is to estimate the national prevalence and economic impact of medical harm in Thailand using routine administrative data from the inpatient department electronic claim database under the Universal Coverage scheme from 2016 to 2020. Our findings show that there are approximately 400,000 visits with potentially unsafe medical care per year (or 7% of all inpatient visits under the Universal Coverage scheme). The annual cost of medical harm is estimated to be approximately USD 278 million (approximately THB 9.6 billion), with an average of 3.5 million bed-days per year. This evidence can be used to raise safety awareness and support medical harm prevention policies. Future work should focus on improving medical harm surveillance using better data quality and more comprehensive data on medical harm.

Physical inactivity is a significant risk factor for developing non-communicable diseases. This study estimates the additional health costs due to physical inactivity in Thai middle age and older working adults. We included participants aged 40 years and above from the Physical Activity at Work study, who had valid physical activity data from ActiGraph. Health costs were collected using the Health and Welfare Survey and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire in Thailand. Direct and indirect costs (absenteeism and presenteeism) of the most recent illness in the previous month were collected. Active participants were defined as having at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity equivalent activity per week. Two-part models were used to compare health costs between active and non-active participants. Data from 105 participants aged 40 to 63 were included in the analysis, where 42% of participants were active. Inadequate physical activity was significantly associated with increased direct health costs of 160.5THB (95%CI: 31.3 to 289.7THB) (~7.8 times higher in inactive). Further adjustment for sex, age, education, obesity, and cardiovascular condition yielded similar findings. After incorporating these indirect costs, the societal cost of having inadequate physical activity was 791.22THB (95%CI: 115.6 to 1466.8THB) (~1.3 times higher in inactive), even after adjusting for the covariates. Obesity and the female were also associated with higher societal costs (551.9THB and 342.9THB, respectively), although these results were not significant. Increasing physical activity in middle age and older working adults to meet the current guidelines may reduce Thailand’s health costs.

IntroductionPrecision medicine (PM) involves gene testing to identify disease risk, enable early diagnosis or guide therapeutic choice, and targeted gene therapy. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the cost-effectiveness profile of PM stratified by intervention type, identify sources of heterogeneity in the value-for-money of PM.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic search in Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit and CRD databases for studies published in English language or with translation in English between 1 January 2011 and 8 July 2021 on the topic of cost-effectiveness analysis of PM interventions. The focus will be on studies that reported health and economic outcomes. Study quality will be assessed using the Biases in Economic Studies checklist. The incremental net benefit of PM screening, diagnostic, treatment-targeting and therapeutic interventions over conventional strategies will be respectively pooled across studies using a random-effect model if heterogeneity is present, otherwise a fixed-effect model. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on disease area, WHO region and World Bank country-income level. Additionally, we will identify the potential sources of heterogeneity with random-effect meta-regressions. Finally, biases will be detected using jackknife sensitivity analysis, funnel plot assessment and Egger’s tests.Ethics and disseminationFor this type of study ethics approval or formal consent is not required. The results will be disseminated at various presentations and feedback sessions, in conference abstracts and manuscripts that will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021272956.

Introduction This study aimed to compare the cost utility of concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) to CCRT followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CCRT/ACT) in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) using provider and societal viewpoints. Methods Data from our trial which was a multi-centre study evaluating the efficacy of ACT compared to CCRT/ACT were entered into a decision tree model. The data included clinical probability, direct medical and non-medical costs, and utility obtained from the patients. The total cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated for a time horizon of 3 years. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Results The cost of CCRT and CCRT/ACT was approximately 3,058 and 6,896 USD and 4,309 and 7,480 USD from provider and from societal viewpoints, respectively. The QALYs for CCRT and CCRT/ACT were 2.31480 and 2.32045, respectively. The ICER was 569,575 USD per QALY. For stage III-IVA LACC, the ICER was 28,050 USD per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the cost of ACT was the most significant influential parameter on the ICER. The ICER would be 0.26-fold lower if the cost of ACT was reduced by 25%. At the current ceiling threshold of 5,000 USD/QALY, CCRT had a 100% probability of being the best option. Conclusions In the Thai context, CCRT is more cost effective than CCRT/ACT for stage IIB-IVA LACC. CCRT/ACT may be considered only for stage III-IVA LACC because it has a lower ICER than other types of LACC.

As economic evaluation becomes increasingly essential to support universal health coverage (UHC), we aim to understand the growth, characteristics, and quality of cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEA) conducted for Africa and to assess institutional capacity and relationship patterns among authors. We searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registries and four databases to identify CEAs for Africa. After extracting relevant information, we examined study characteristics, cost‐effectiveness ratios, individual and institutional contribution to the literature, and network dyads at the author, institution, and country levels. The 358 identified CEAs for Africa primarily focused on sub‐Saharan Africa (96%) and interventions for communicable diseases (77%). Of 2,121 intervention‐specific ratios, 8% were deemed cost‐saving, and most evaluated immunizations strategies. As 64% of studies included at least one African author, we observed widespread collaboration among international researchers and institutions. However, only 23% of first authors were affiliated with African institutions. The top producers of CEAs among African institutions are more adherent to methodological and reporting guidelines. Although economic evidence in Africa has grown substantially, the capacity for generating such evidence remains limited. Increasing the ability of regional institutions to produce high‐quality evidence and facilitate knowledge transfer among African institutions has the potential to inform prioritization decisions for designing UHC.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the Total System Effectiveness (TSE) framework to assist national policy-makers in prioritizing vaccines. The pilot was launched in Thailand to explore the potential use of TSE in a country with established governance structures and accountable decision-making processes for immunization policy. While the existing literature informs vaccine adoption decisions in GAVI-eligible countries, this study attempts to address a gap in the literature by examining the policy process of a non-GAVI eligible country. Methods: A rotavirus vaccine (RVV) test case was used to compare the decision criteria made by the existing processes (Expanded Program on Immunization [EPI], and National List of Essential Medicines [NLEM]) for vaccine prioritization and the TSE-pilot model, using Thailand specific data. Results: The existing decision-making processes in Thailand and TSE were found to offer similar recommendations on the selection of a RVV product. Conclusion: The authors believe that TSE can provide a well-reasoned and step by step approach for countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to develop a systematic and transparent decision-making process for immunization policy.

Background There are ongoing calls to harmonise and increase the use of COVID-19 vaccination certificates (CVCs) in Asia. Identifying groups in Asian societies who oppose CVCs and understanding their reasons can help formulate an effective CVCs policy in the region. However, no formal studies have explored this issue in Asia. Method The COVID-19 Vaccination Policy Research and Decision-Support Initiative in Asia (CORESIA) was established to address policy questions related to CVCs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to October 2021 in nine Asian countries. Multivariable logistical regression analyses were performed to identify potential opposers of CVCs. Results Six groups were identified as potential opposers of CVCs: (i) unvaccinated (Odd Ratio (OR): 2.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.65-2.46); vaccine hesitant and those without access to COVID-19 vaccines; (ii) those not wanting existing NPIs to continue (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.51-3.53); (iii) those with low level of trust in governments (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-2.52); (iv) those without travel plans (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.31-1.90); (v) those expecting no financial gains from CVCs (OR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.98-2.78); and (vi) those disagreeing to use CVCs for employment, education, events, hospitality, and domestic travel. Conclusions Addressing recurring public health bottlenecks such as vaccine hesitancy and equitable access, adherence to policies, public trust, and changing the narrative from ‘societal-benefit’ to ‘personal-benefit’ may be necessary and may help increase wider adoption of CVCs in Asia.

Objectives Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap. Methods The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review. Results A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation. Conclusions The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Objectives Health technology assessment (HTA) plays a central role in the coverage and reimbursement decision-making process for public health expenditure in many countries, including Thailand. However, there have been few attempts to quantitatively understand the benefits of using HTA to inform resource allocation decisions. The objective of this research was to simulate the expected net monetary benefit (NMB) from using HTA-based decision criteria compared to a first-come, first-served (FCFS) approach using data from Thailand. Methods A previously published simulation model was adapted to the Thai context which aimed to simulate the impact of using different decision-making criteria to adopt or reject health technologies for public reimbursement. Specifically, the simulation model provides a quantitative comparison between an HTA-based funding rule and a counterfactual (FCFS) funding rule to make decisions on which health technologies should be funded. The primary output of the model was the NMB of using HTA-based decision criteria compared to the counterfactual approach. The HTA-based decision rule in the model involved measuring incremental cost-effectiveness ratios against a cost-effectiveness threshold. The counterfactual decision rule was a FCFS (random) selection of health technologies. Results The HTA-based decision rule was associated with a greater NMB compared to the counterfactual. In the investigated analyses, the NMB ranged from THB24,238 million (USD725 million) to THB759,328 million (USD22,719 million). HTA-based decisions led to fewer costs, superior health outcomes (more quality-adjusted life-years). Conclusions The results support the hypothesis that HTA can provide health and economic benefits by improving the efficiency of resource allocation decision making.

IntroductionThe arrival of COVID-19 vaccines in Thailand has supported the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care workers (HCWs) in Thailand before and after vaccines' availability and investigated factors (both enablers and barriers) affecting their decisions.MethodsTwo online self-administered questionnaires were distributed to HCWs in two time-periods: (1) the pre-vaccine arrival period (prior to COVID-19 vaccines' arrival in Thailand, January 28 to February 16, 2021); and (2) the post-vaccine arrival period (April 21 to May 9, 2021). Descriptive analyses and multinomial logistic regression were conducted to examine factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.ResultsThere were 55,068 respondents in the pre-vaccine arrival period and 27,319 respondents in the post-vaccine arrival period. In the pre-vaccine arrival period, 55.0% of respondents were willing to accept the vaccines, 35.4% were uncertain, and 9.6% declined. In the post-vaccine arrival period, ~16% already received two doses of either the Sinovac or AstraZeneca vaccine, and 43% were administered one dose. Approximately 12% of those who had received the first dose were uncertain or not willing to accept the second dose. Demographic and socio-demographic factors of participants, including their sex, place of residence, and whether they were frontline COVID-19 workers, were found to be the significant factors explaining vaccination hesitancy. Moreover, when comparing the pre-vaccine arrival and post-vaccine arrival periods, it was found that older HCWs were more likely to decline a COVID-19 vaccine in the pre-vaccine arrival period; on the other hand, older HCWs were less likely to decline or be uncertain to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the post-vaccine arrival period.ConclusionInformation on HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, including who is more likely to accept the vaccines, could assist in planning vaccine allocation to both HCWs and the general public, who often believe HCWs' recommendations. This study's findings set out how policies can be addressed to reduce vaccine hesitancy. This study also highlights HCWs' characteristics (including gender, work region, occupation, and history of receiving influenza vaccination) and the reasons they cited for their vaccine acceptance or hesitance.

Objective This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, preferred COVID-19 vaccine profiles, and the preferred vaccination strategies in Thailand. Methods An age-structured transmission dynamic model was developed based on key local data to evaluate economic consequences, including cost and health outcome in terms of life-years (LYs) saved. We considered COVID-19 vaccines with different profiles and different vaccination strategies such as vaccinating elderly age groups (over 65s) or high-incidence groups, i.e. adults between 20 and 39 years old who have contributed to more than 60% of total COVID-19 cases in the country thus far. Analyses employed a societal perspective in a 1-year time horizon using a cost-effectiveness threshold of 160,000 THB per LY saved. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to identify and characterize uncertainty in the model. Results COVID-19 vaccines that block infection combined with social distancing were cost-saving regardless of the target population compared to social distancing alone (with no vaccination). For vaccines that block infection, the preferred (cost-effective) strategy was to vaccinate the high incidence group. Meanwhile, COVID-19 vaccines that reduces severity (including hospitalization and mortality) were cost-effective when the elderly were vaccinated, while vaccinating the high-incidence group was not cost-effective with this vaccine type. Regardless of vaccine type, higher vaccination coverage, higher efficacy, and longer protection duration were always preferred. More so, vaccination with social distancing measures was always preferred to strategies without social distancing. Quarantine-related costs were a major cost component affecting the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines are good value for money even in a relatively low-incidence and low-mortality setting such as Thailand, if the appropriate groups are vaccinated. The preferred vaccination strategies depend on the type of vaccine efficacy. Social distancing measures should accompany a vaccination strategy.

IntroductionSeveral treatment options are available for COVID-19 to date. However, the use of a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is necessary for jurisdictions to contain its spread. Although the implementation cost of NPIs may be low from the healthcare system perspective, it can be costly when considering the indirect costs from the societal perspective. COVID-19 vaccination campaigns have begun in several countries worldwide. Nonetheless, the quantity of vaccines available remain limited over the next 1 to 2 years. A tool for informing vaccine prioritisation that considers both cost and effectiveness will be highly useful. This study aims to identify the most cost-effective combination of COVID-19 response policies, using Singapore as an example.Methods and analysisAn age-stratified Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered model will be used to generate the number of infections stratified by disease severity under different intervention scenarios. Polices of interest include test-trace-isolate, travel restriction, compulsory face mask and hygiene practices, social distancing, dexamethasone/remdesivir therapy and vaccination. The latest phase 3 trial results and the WHO Target Product Profiles for COVID-19 vaccines will be used to model vaccine characteristics. A cost (expected resource utilisation and productivity losses) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) will be attached to these outputs for a cost-utility analysis. The primary outcome measure will be the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio generated from the incremental cost of policy alternatives expressed as a ratio of the incremental benefits (QALYs gained). Efficacy of policy options will be gathered from literature review and from its observed impacts in Singapore. Cost data will be gathered from healthcare institutions, Ministry of Health and published data. Sensitivity analysis such as threshold analysis and scenario analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not required for this study. The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

IntroductionAcute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies; however, optimal diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis remains challenging. We used the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown policy as a natural experiment to explore potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of acute appendicitis in Thailand. The aim of this study was to estimate the potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of acute appendicitis in Thailand by examining service utilization before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown policy.MethodsA secondary data analysis of patients admitted with acute appendicitis under the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) in Thailand over a 6-year period between 2016 and 2021 was conducted. The trend of acute appendicitis was plotted using a 14-day rolling average of daily cases. Patient characteristics, clinical management, and outcomes were descriptively presented and compared among three study periods, namely pre-pandemic, lockdown, and post-lockdown.ResultsThe number of overall acute appendicitis cases decreased from 25,407 during pre-pandemic to 22,006 during lockdown (13.4% reduction) and 21,245 during post-lockdown (16.4% reduction). This reduction was mostly due to a lower incidence of uncomplicated acute appendicitis, whereas cases of generalized peritonitis were scarcely affected by the pandemic. There was an increasing trend towards the usage of diagnostic computerized tomography for acute appendicitis but no significant difference in treatment modalities and complication rates.ConclusionThe stable rates of generalized peritonitis and complications during the COVID-19 lockdown, despite fewer admissions overall, suggest that there may have been overdiagnosis and overtreatment of acute appendicitis in Thailand. Policy makers could use these findings to improve clinical practice for acute appendicitis in Thailand and support the efficient utilization of surgical services in the future, especially during pandemics.

Background Economic evaluations have been widely used to inform and guide policy-making process in healthcare resources allocation as a part of an evidence package. An intervention is considered cost-effective if an ICER is less than a cost-effectiveness threshold (CET), where a CET represents the acceptable price for a unit of additional health gain which a decision-maker is willing to pay. There has been discussion to increase a CET in many settings such as the United Kingdom and Thailand. To the best of our knowledge, Thailand is the only country that has an explicit CET and has revised their CET, not once but twice. Hence, the situation in Thailand provides a unique opportunity for evaluating the impact of changing CET on healthcare expenditure and manufacturers’ behaviours in the real-world setting. Before we decide whether a CET should be increased, information on what happened after the CET was increased in the past could be informative and helpful. Objectives This study protocol describes a proposed plan to investigate the impact of increased cost-effectiveness threshold using Thailand as a case study. Specifically, we will examine the impact of increasing CET on the drug prices submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the National List of Essential Medicine (NLEM), the decision to include or exclude medications in the NLEM, and the overall budget impact. Materials and designs Retrospective data analysis of the impact of increased CET on national drug committee decisions in Thailand (an upper middle-income country) will be conducted and included data from various sources such as literature, local organizations (e.g. Thai Food and Drug Administration), and inputs from stakeholder consultation meetings. The outcomes include: (1) drug price submitted by the manufacturers and final drug price included in the NLEM if available; (2) decisions about whether the drug was included in the NLEM for reimbursement; and (3) budget impact. The independent variables include a CET, the variable of interest, which can take values of THB100,000, THB120,000, or THB160,000, and potential confounders such as whether this drug was for a chronic disease, market size, and primary endpoint. We will conduct separate multivariable regression analysis for each outcome specified above. Discussion Understanding the impact of increasing the CET would be helpful in assisting the decision to use and develop an appropriate threshold for one’s own setting. Due to the nature of the study design, the findings will be prone to confounding effect and biases; therefore, the analyses will be adjusted for potential confounders and statistical methods will be explored to minimize biases. Knowledge gained from the study will be conveyed to the public through various disseminations such as reports, policy briefs, academic journals, and presentations.

ObjectivesEndovascular therapy (EVT) has proven to be clinically effective in treating large vessel occlusion acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), either alone or in combination with intravenous alteplase. Despite this, there is a limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of EVT in Thailand and other low-income and middle-income countries. This study aims to assess whether EVT is a cost-effective therapy for AIS, and to estimate the fiscal burden to the Thai government through budget impact analysis.MethodsAn economic evaluation was performed to compare AIS therapy with and without EVT from a societal perspective. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Clinical parameters were derived from both national and international literature, while cost and utility data were collected locally. The analysis applied a cost-effectiveness threshold of 160 000 Baht (~$5000) per QALY, as set by the Thai government.ResultsBoth EVT alone and EVT combined with intravenous alteplase, among patients who are ineligible and eligible for intravenous alteplase, respectively, improved health outcomes but incurred additional cost. The combination of EVT and intravenous alteplase was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 146 800 THB per QALY gained compared with intravenous alteplase alone, and the ICER of EVT alone compared with supportive care among patients ineligible for intravenous alteplase was estimated at 115 000 THB per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that the price of EVT has the greatest impact on model outcomes. Over a time horizon of 5 years, the introduction of EVT into the Thai health benefit package would require an additional budget of 887 million THB, assuming 2000 new cases per year.ConclusionsEVT represents good value for money in the Thai context, both when provided to patients eligible for intravenous alteplase, and when provided alone to those who are ineligible for intravenous alteplase.

Economic evidence is increasingly being used for informing health policies. However, the underlining principles of health economic analyses are not always fully understood by non-health economists, and inappropriate types of analyses, as well as inconsistent methodologies, may be being used for informing health policy decisions. In addition, there is a lack of open access information and methodological guidance targeted to public health professionals, particularly those based in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive and accessible introduction to economic evaluations for public health professionals with a focus on LMIC settings. We cover the main principles underlining the most common types of full economic evaluations used in healthcare decision making in the context of priority setting (namely cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses), and outline their key features, strengths and weaknesses. It is envisioned that this will help those conducting such analyses, as well as stakeholders that need to interpret their output, gain a greater understanding of these methods and help them select/distinguish between the different approaches. In particular, we highlight the need for greater awareness of the methods used to place a monetary value on the health benefits of interventions, and the potential for such estimates to be misinterpreted. Specifically, the economic benefits reported are typically an approximation, summarising the health benefits experienced by a population monetarily in terms of individual preferences or potential productivity gains, rather than actual realisable or fiscal monetary benefits to payers or society.

Real-world effectiveness studies are important for monitoring performance of COVID-19 vaccination programmes and informing COVID-19 prevention and control policies. We aimed to synthesise methodological approaches used in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies, in order to evaluate which approaches are most appropriate to implement in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). For this rapid systematic review, we searched PubMed and Scopus for articles published from inception to July 7, 2021, without language restrictions. We included any type of peer-reviewed observational study measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, for any population. We excluded randomised control trials and modelling studies. All data used in the analysis were extracted from included papers. We used a standardised data extraction form, modified from STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Study quality was assessed using the REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021264658. Our search identified 3,327 studies, of which 42 were eligible for analysis. Most studies (97.5%) were conducted in high-income countries and the majority assessed mRNA vaccines (78% mRNA only, 17% mRNA and viral vector, 2.5% viral vector, 2.5% inactivated vaccine). Thirty-five of the studies (83%) used a cohort study design. Across studies, short follow-up time and limited assessment and mitigation of potential confounders, including previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and healthcare seeking behaviour, were major limitations. This review summarises methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and highlights the lack of such studies in LMICs, as well as the importance of context-specific vaccine effectiveness data. Further research in LMICs will refine guidance for conducting real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies in resource-constrained settings.

Background Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have an important role to play in managing the rising demands on health systems. However, creating and running such agencies potentially diverts resources from frontline services. A large number of studies address the question of ‘what is the impact of HTA?’. Several points of heterogeneity in this literature include: purpose of the study, definition of HTA, definition of impact, and scope and rigour of evaluations. Our study seeks to address several limitations in this literature. This study aims to explore the mechanisms of impact of an HTA agency. In doing so, we consider HTA as an institution rather than a knowledge product to build an impact evaluation framework from an international, multi-stakeholder and multi-dimensional perspective. Methods We conducted 9 key informant interviews with experts from the international HTA community. We addressed several questions, informed by existing frameworks of impact within the literature, to understand their perspectives on the mechanisms of impact of an HTA agency. We analyse data using logic modelling and impact mapping, as tools to understand and visualise mechanisms of change. Findings Our impact mapping highlights several distinct, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, mechanisms through which the overall impact of an HTA agency is achieved. These are: the effective conduct of HTA studies; effective use of HTA in agenda-setting and policy formulation processes; effective engagement and external communications; good institutional reputation and fit within the healthcare and policy-making system; effective use of HTA as a tool for the negotiation of health technology prices; and the effective implementation of policy change regarding health technologies. We also identify indicators of these effects. Conclusions Our findings and resulting evaluation framework complement and add to existing literature by offering a new perspective on the mechanisms by which HTA agencies generate impact. This new perspective considers HTA as an institution rather than a knowledge product, is international, multi-dimensional, and includes multi-stakeholder views. We hope the analysis will be useful to countries interested in managing HTA performance.

Beyond vaccine safety, efficacy and procurement lie licensing and delivery — nations must get ready. Beyond vaccine safety, efficacy and procurement lie licensing and delivery — nations must get ready.

Objective: To estimate and compare the prevalences of anxiety at first and subsequent pregnancies and explore its associated factors.Material and Methods: The study was conducted among multiparous women aged

A trend towards charging for access to research findings, tools and databases is becoming more prominent globally. But charging for the use of research tools and databases that are vital to research supporting national and international policy development might be unjustified. Financial barriers to accessing these tools and databases disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries, who may have greater need for information that fuels research in their areas of concern. However, changing this trend is potentially possible. One example is the experience with the EuroQol-five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D), a generic measure of health status used in economic evaluations for resource allocation decisions. Increasingly, governments and health-care providers are using the EQ-5D tool in patient-reported outcome measures to monitor quality of health-care provision, diagnose and track disease progression, and involve patients in their health care. The EuroQol Group, which owns the intellectual property rights to the EQ-5D, recently terminated their policy of charging for noncommercial, nonresearch uses of the tool. We share a brief history of this development and examine these charging policies in the context of the EQ-5D's use in national health-care research and policies, reflecting the trends and developments in the use of survey instruments on population health.On observe à l'échelle mondiale une tendance de plus en plus marquée à la tarification de l'accès aux résultats, aux outils et aux bases de données de recherche. Cependant, la tarification de l'utilisation d'outils et de bases de données essentiels aux recherches appuyant l'élaboration de politiques nationales et internationales n'est pas toujours justifiée. Les obstacles financiers qui entravent l'accès à ces outils et bases de données affectent de manière disproportionnée les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire, qui peuvent avoir davantage besoin d'informations pour alimenter des recherches sur leurs sujets de préoccupation. Il est toutefois possible d'infléchir cette tendance. Le questionnaire EuroQol-five-dimensions (EQ-5D), une mesure générale de l'état de santé utilisée dans les évaluations économiques pour les décisions relatives à l'affectation des ressources, constitue un exemple. Les gouvernements et les prestataires de soins de santé utilisent de plus en plus l'outil EQ-5D dans les mesures des résultats notifiés par les patients pour surveiller la qualité de la prestation des soins de santé, diagnostiquer et suivre l'évolution d'une maladie, et associer les patients à leurs soins de santé. Le groupe EuroQol, qui détient les droits de propriété intellectuelle relatifs à l'EQ-5D, a récemment mis fin à sa politique de tarification pour l'utilisation de l'outil à des fins non commerciales et dans un contexte autre que celui de la recherche. Nous retraçons brièvement ce cheminement et examinons ces politiques de tarification dans le contexte de l'utilisation de l'EQ-5D dans les recherches et politiques nationales sur les soins de santé, en rendant compte de l'évolution de l'utilisation du matériel d'enquête sur la santé de la population.La tendencia a cobrar por el acceso a los resultados de las investigaciones, las herramientas y las bases de datos está cobrando cada vez más importancia en todo el mundo. Sin embargo, puede que no esté justificado cobrar por el uso de herramientas de investigación y bases de datos que son vitales para la investigación en apoyo del desarrollo de políticas nacionales e internacionales. Las barreras financieras para acceder a estas herramientas y bases de datos afectan desproporcionadamente a los países de ingresos bajos y medios, que pueden tener una mayor necesidad de información que impulse la investigación en sus áreas de interés. Sin embargo, es posible cambiar esta tendencia. Un ejemplo es la experiencia con el cuestionario de cinco dimensiones EuroQol (EQ-5D), una medida genérica del estado de salud utilizada en las evaluaciones económicas para las decisiones de asignación de recursos. Cada vez más, los gobiernos y los proveedores de la atención de la salud están utilizando la herramienta EQ-5D en las medidas de resultado informadas por el paciente para supervisar la calidad de la prestación de la atención de la salud, diagnosticar y hacer un seguimiento de la progresión de la enfermedad e involucrar a los pacientes en su cuidado de la salud. El Grupo EuroQol, propietario de los derechos de propiedad intelectual de EQ-5D, puso fin recientemente a su política de cobrar por los usos no comerciales y no relacionados con la investigación de la herramienta. En este artículo se presenta una breve historia de este desarrollo y se examinan estas políticas de cobro en el contexto del uso de EQ-5D en la investigación y las políticas nacionales de atención de la salud, reflejando las tendencias y los avances en el uso de los instrumentos de las encuestas sobre la salud de la población.أصبح الاتجاه نحو فرض رسوم مقابل الاطلاع على نتائج الأبحاث والأدوات وقواعد البيانات، أكثر وضوحاً على مستوى العالم. إلا أن فرض رسوم على استخدام أدوات البحث وقواعد البيانات التي تعد ضرورية للبحث الذي يدعم تطوير السياسات الوطنية والدولية، أمراً غير مبرر. إن العقبات المالية التي تعوق الاطلاع على هذه الأدوات وقواعد البيانات تؤثر بشكل غير متناسب على البلدان ذات الدخل المنخفض والمتوسط، والتي قد تكون بحاجة أكبر إلى المعلومات التي تغذي الأبحاث في مجالات اهتمامها. إلا أن تغيير هذا الاتجاه أمر ممكن ومحتمل. ومثال على ذلك تجربة استبيان EuroQol خماسي الأبعاد (EQ-5D)، وهو مقياس عام للحالة الصحية يتم استخدامه في التقييمات الاقتصادية لقرارات تخصيص الموارد. تستخدم الحكومات وجهات تقديم الرعاية الصحية على نحو متزايد أداة EQ-5D في مقاييس النتائج التي يبلغ عنها المريض، لمراقبة جودة توفير الرعاية الصحية، وتشخيص وتتبع تطور المرض، مع إشراك المرضى في الرعاية الصحية المقدمة لهم. قامت مجموعة EuroQol Group، التي تمتلك حقوق الملكية الفكرية لـ EQ-5D، مؤخراً بإنهاء سياستها الخاصة بفرض رسوم على استخدامات الأداة لأغراض غير تجارية وغير بحثية. نحن نقوم بعرض تاريخ موجز لهذا التطور، ونختبر تلك السياسات الخاصة بفرض الرسوم في سياق استخدام EQ-5D في الأبحاث والسياسات الوطنية للرعاية الصحية، مما يعكس الاتجاهات والتطورات في استخدام أدوات المسح الإحصائي على صحة السكان.在全球范围内，要求付费以获取研究成果、工具和数据库的现象逐渐成为一种重要趋势。但是，使用对支持国家和国际政策发展的研究至关重要的研究工具和数据库时，相关收费并不合理。为访问这些工具和数据库设置的资金障碍对中低收入国家的影响尤为严重，这是因为中低收入国家可能需要更多信息以推动其相关领域的研究发展。但是，或许可以改变这种趋势。以使用 EuroQol 五维问卷（EQ-5D，在资源分配决策相关经济评估方面使用的通用健康状态测量量表）的经验为例。越来越多的政府部门和医疗保健提供者在患者报告结局测量方面使用 EQ-5D 工具，以监控医疗保健质量、诊断和跟踪疾病进展并吸引患者参与其医疗保健项目。拥有 EQ-5D 的知识产权的欧洲生存质量学会最近终止了一项政策，即其针对出于非商业和非研究目的使用该工具的情况实施的收费政策。我们简单分享了其发展史，并基于 EQ-5D 在国家医疗保健研究和政策领域的使用情况，研究了这些收费政策，以反映使用人口健康调查工具的趋势和发展。.Тенденция к начислению платы за доступ к результатам, инструментам и базам данных исследований приобретает ярко выраженный характер по всему миру. Но взимание платы за использование инструментов и баз данных исследований, совершенно необходимых для поддержки развития национальных и международных политик, может быть необоснованным. Финансовые барьеры к использованию этих инструментов и баз данных могут непропорционально сильно сказаться на странах со средним и низким уровнем дохода, которые могут испытывать большую потребность в информации, поддерживающей проведение исследований в проблемных для данных стран областях. Однако существует потенциальная возможность изменить такую тенденцию. В качестве одного из примеров можно привести опросник из пяти вопросов EuroQol (EQ-5D) — общий показатель состояния здоровья, используемый при экономической оценке для принятия решений о распределении ресурсов. Правительства стран и медицинские учреждения все чаще используют инструмент EQ-5D для измерения результатов, сообщаемых пациентами, с целью контроля качества оказания медицинской помощи, диагностики и отслеживания течения заболевания, а также вовлечения пациентов в процесс медицинского обслуживания. Компания EuroQol Group, которая владеет правами интеллектуальной собственности на EQ-5D, недавно отказалась от политики начисления платы за некоммерческое использование инструмента, не связанное с проведением исследований. Авторы вкратце рассказывают о развитии данной ситуации и рассматривают политики относительно начисления платы в контексте использования EQ-5D в национальных исследованиях и разработке политик в области здравоохранения, отражающих тенденции и изменения в использовании средств исследования здоровья населения.

The Disease Control Priorities program (DCP) has pioneered the use of economic evidence in health. The theory of change (ToC) put forward by Norheim is a further welcome and necessary step towards translating DCP evidence into better priority setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also agree that institutionalising evidence for informed priority-setting processes is crucial. Unfortunately, there have been missed opportunities for the DCP program to challenge ill-judged global norms about opportunity costs and too little respect has been shown for the wider set of local circumstances that may enable, or disable, the productive application of the DCP evidence base. We suggest that the best way forward for the global health community is a new platform that integrates the many existing development initiatives and that is driven by countries’ asks.

COVID-19 disease models have aided policymakers in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) with many critical decisions. Many challenges remain surrounding their use, from inappropriate model selection and adoption, inadequate and untimely reporting of evidence, to the lack of iterative stakeholder engagement in policy formulation and deliberation. These issues can contribute to the misuse of models and hinder effective policy implementation. Without guidance on how to address such challenges, the true potential of such models may not be realised. The COVID-19 Multi-Model Comparison Collaboration (CMCC) was formed to address this gap. CMCC is a global collaboration between decision-makers from LMICs, modellers and researchers, and development partners. To understand the limitations of existing COVID-19 disease models (primarily from high income countries) and how they could be adequately support decision-making in LMICs, a desk review of modelling experience during the COVID-19 and past disease outbreaks, two online surveys, and regular online consultations were held among the collaborators. Three key recommendations from CMCC include: A 'fitness-for-purpose' flowchart, a tool that concurrently walks policymakers (or their advisors) and modellers through a model selection and development process. The flowchart is organised around the following: policy aims, modelling feasibility, model implementation, model reporting commitment. Holmdahl and Buckee (2020) A 'reporting standards trajectory', which includes three gradually increasing standard of reports, 'minimum', 'acceptable', and 'ideal', and seeks collaboration from funders, modellers, and decision-makers to enhance the quality of reports over time and accountability of researchers. Malla et al. (2018) A framework for "collaborative modelling for effective policy implementation and evaluation" which extends the definition of stakeholders to funders, ground-level implementers, public, and other researchers, and outlines how each can contribute to modelling. We advocate for standardisation of modelling processes and adoption of country-owned model through iterative stakeholder participation and discuss how they can enhance trust, accountability, and public ownership to decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic is unlikely to end until there is global roll-out of vaccines that protect against severe disease and preferably drive herd immunity. Regulators in numerous countries have authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccines for human use, with more expected to be licensed in 2021. Yet having licensed vaccines is not enough to achieve global control of COVID-19: they also need to be produced at scale, priced affordably, allocated globally so that they are available where needed, and widely deployed in local communities. In this Health Policy paper, we review potential challenges to success in each of these dimensions and discuss policy implications. To guide our review, we developed a dashboard to highlight key characteristics of 26 leading vaccine candidates, including efficacy levels, dosing regimens, storage requirements, prices, production capacities in 2021, and stocks reserved for low-income and middle-income countries. We use a traffic-light system to signal the potential contributions of each candidate to achieving global vaccine immunity, highlighting important trade-offs that policy makers need to consider when developing and implementing vaccination programmes. Although specific datapoints are subject to change as the pandemic response progresses, the dashboard will continue to provide a useful lens through which to analyse the key issues affecting the use of COVID-19 vaccines. We also present original data from a 32-country survey (n=26 758) on potential acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, conducted from October to December, 2020. Vaccine acceptance was highest in Vietnam (98%), India (91%), China (91%), Denmark (87%), and South Korea (87%), and lowest in Serbia (38%), Croatia (41%), France (44%), Lebanon (44%), and Paraguay (51%).

Thailand is facing the dilemma of which groups to prioritise for the limited first tranche of vaccinations in 2021. A mathematical modelling analysis was performed to compare the potential short-term impact of allocating the available doses to either the high-risk group (over 65-year-olds) or the high incidence group (aged 20-39). Vaccinating the high incidence group with a vaccine with sufficiently high protection against infection (more than 50%) could provide enough herd effects to delay the expected epidemic peak, resulting in fewer deaths within the 12-month time horizon compared to vaccinating the same number of the high-risk group. After 12 months, if no further vaccination or other interventions were deployed, this strategy would lead to more deaths. With the right vaccine efficacy profile, targeting the high incidence groups could be a viable short-term component of the Thai vaccination strategy. These results and emerging evidence on vaccines and susceptibility suggest prioritisation guidelines should be more nuanced.