Search

The GEMKAP study (2023) unveiled consistent knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) levels across Asia-Pacific (APAC) and Latin America (LATAM) countries regarding dengue, with variations in the willingness to vaccinate. Despite an overall KAP parity, the disparities within and between the countries indicated the need for both overarching and tailored strategies. Population-wide gaps in dengue awareness result in suboptimal vaccination priorities and preventive measures. This commentary delves into identifying the drivers and barriers for implementing a multi-pronged dengue prevention and management program, emphasizing the pivotal role of vaccination alongside education and vector control. Drawing on expert interviews in APAC and LATAM, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), four key themes emerged: prioritizing and continuously advocating for dengue on national health agendas, fostering stakeholder collaboration, incorporating population perspectives for behavioral change, and designing sustainable dengue prevention and management programs. Successful implementation requires evidence-based decision making and a comprehensive understanding of population dynamics to design adaptive education tailored to diverse population views. This commentary provides actionable strategies for enhancing dengue prevention and management, with a pronounced emphasis on dengue vaccination, advocating for a holistic, population-centric approach for sustained effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to systematically review and explore the impact of study methods on the cost of managing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among hospitalized patients to guide policymakers and researchers. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The search was restricted to studies from 2000 to 2017. Two authors independently reviewed the studies, assessed their risk of bias, and extracted information for analysis. Data abstraction was based on the study design, ADR reporting, and costing approaches. Of 677 studies identified, 12 were included for analysis. All studies defined ADR according to WHO classifications. The percentage of admission due to ADR ranged from 0.03% to 17.11%. All studies adopted a healthcare provider perspective, using either a micro-costing (n = 7), case-mix group costing (n = 3), or average-per-diem costing (n = 2) approach. The cost per ADR widely fluctuated from USD 65.00 to USD 12,129.90 based on various factors. The micro-costing approach generally had a lower cost compared to other approaches. The cost per ADR in high-income countries was also 10 times higher than in lower- or middle-income countries. This study evidenced that the methodological heterogeneity across studies has resulted in a wide range of cost estimations for ADR management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A lack of guidance on economic evaluations for oral cancer screening programs forms a challenge for policymakers and researchers to fill the knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. This systematic review thus aims to compare the outcomes and design of such evaluations. A search for economic evaluations of oral cancer screening was performed on Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, health technology assessment databases, and EBSCO Open Dissertations. The quality of studies was appraised using QHES and the Philips Checklist. Data abstraction was based on reported outcomes and study design characteristics. Of the 362 studies identified, 28 were evaluated for eligibility. The final six studies reviewed consisted of modeling approaches (n = 4), a randomized controlled trial (n = 1), and a retrospective observational study (n = 1). Screening initiatives were mostly shown to be cost-effective compared to non-screening. However, inter-study comparisons remained ambiguous due to large variations. The observational and randomized controlled trials provided considerably accurate evidence of implementation costs and outcomes. Modeling approaches, conversely, appeared more feasible for the estimation of long-term consequences and the exploration of strategy options. The current evidence of the cost-effectiveness of oral cancer screening remains heterogeneous and inadequate to support its institutionalization. Nevertheless, evaluations incorporating modeling methods may provide a practical and robust solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dengue represents a major public health concern. With effective vaccines in development, it is important to identify motivational factors to maximize dengue vaccine uptake. A cross-sectional, quantitative, electronic survey was administered to a nationally representative adult population (n = 3800) in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. Willingness to vaccinate against dengue, and Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) toward dengue, vector control, prevention, and vaccination were determined. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation for Behavior change (COM-B) framework was used to identify factors correlated with dengue vaccine(s) uptake. KAP scores (standardized, 0–100% scale) resulted in a low global score for Knowledge (48%) and Practice (44%), and a moderate score for Attitude (66%); scores were comparable across countries. Of all respondents, 53% had a high willingness (Score: 8–10/10) to vaccinate against dengue, which was higher (59%) in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico) than in Asia Pacific (40%) (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore). Key factors significantly (p < 0.05) associated with increased willingness to vaccinate included accessibility to the public (subsidies and incentives) and trust in the healthcare system and government. A common approach to dengue prevention across endemic countries––with some country-specific customization, including education, vaccination, and vector control (multi-pronged)––may reduce dengue burden and improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]