Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted the adoption of digital health technologies such as teleconsultation. This research aimed to assess and compare barriers and facilitators for teleconsultation uptake for primary care practitioners in Hong Kong and the Netherlands and evaluate the role of their different healthcare funding models in this adoption process within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative research following a social constructivist paradigm was performed. The study employed a conceptual framework from Lau and colleagues that identifies four levels of factors influencing change in primary care: (1) external contextual factors; (2) organization-related factors; (3) professional factors; and (4) characteristics of the intervention. The four levels were studied through semi-structured, open-ended interviews with primary care physicians. External factors were additionally assessed by means of a literature review. Hong Kong and the Netherlands showed different penetration rates of teleconsultation. Most stakeholders in both settings shared similar barriers and facilitators in the organizational, professional, and intervention levels. However, external contextual factors (i.e., current teleconsultation legislation, available incentives, and level of public awareness) played an important and differing role in teleconsultation uptake and had a direct effect on the organization, the professionals involved, and the type of technology used. Political and organizational actions are required to develop a comprehensive legal framework for the sustainable development of teleconsultation in both settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Hong Kong's seasonal influenza schedule follows the World Health Organization's northern hemisphere vaccine composition recommendations but with year-round influenza activity there is the potential to implement routine age- and gestation-based schedules utilising both northern and southern hemisphere vaccines for children aged 6 months to 2 years and for pregnant women. This study assessed the potential feasibility of such schedules., Methods: A literature review was conducted and in-depth interviews with vaccine experts, policy makers and nurses were undertaken., Results: The following schedules were proposed and assessed for perceived feasibility: 1) a four-dose schedule in the first two years of life requiring an additional unscheduled clinic visit at 7 months; 2) a three-dose schedule excluding the 4-week booster after the first dose; 3) a two-dose schedule for pregnant women involving a dose at the booking visit and a dose with pertussis vaccine at 7 months gestation; and 4) a one-dose schedule at 7 months gestation., Conclusions: Age- and gestation-based routine influenza vaccination schedules are theoretically feasible for both young children and pregnant women. The three-dose paediatric and one-dose obstetric schedules were assessed in interviews with vaccine experts, policy makers and nurses to be most acceptable. Further clinical studies are required to determine whether such schedules are non-inferior to current seasonal-based schedules in terms of vaccine effectiveness and vaccine uptake., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hong Kong experiences year-round influenza activity with winter and summer peaks. The government's Vaccination Subsidy Scheme (VSS) provides vaccine to high-risk groups prior to the larger winter peak. The VSS is predominantly administered through the private sector. This study aimed to cost the two theoretical routine influenza vaccination schedules using both northern and southern hemisphere vaccines, administered according to child's age and women's gestation, from a governmental perspective; and compare these costs to the costs of government's seasonal VSS assuming equivalent coverage estimates to determine the budget impacts of these influenza vaccination programmes in Hong Kong., Methods: We used the World Health Organization's Flutool Plus to estimate the incremental annual costs for immunising young children aged 6 months to 2 years and pregnant women with influenza vaccine during 2021, assuming the latter group accesses the public system for some antenatal care. Inputs were based on literature review, publicly available data and expert opinions. Sensitivity analyses were done with various coverage rates and vaccine costs., Results: The annual incremental cost (including vaccine price) to vaccinate young children with three doses of influenza vaccine during the first two years of life was estimated at USD 1,175,146 (per-dose-cost of USD 10.55) at 75% coverage while that to vaccinate pregnant women with one dose at 60% coverage was estimated at USD 398,555 (per-dose-cost of USD 13.39). Across a range of sensitivity analyses we predict that routine year-round schedules could be cost-saving to the government compared to the VSS. Implementing routine immunisation to both risk groups equates to USD 1,573,701, i.e., 0.012% of Hong Kong's annual healthcare spending., Conclusion: Proposed year-round universal schedules providing influenza immunisation according to the child's age or the woman's gestation are predicted to be cost-saving compared to the current seasonally administered subsidised vaccine programme., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Raymond Hutubessy reports a relationship with World Health Organization that includes: employment., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Choice-based experiments have been increasingly used to elicit preferences for vaccines and vaccination programs. This study aims to systematically identify and examine choice-based experiments assessing (differences in) vaccine preferences of vaccinees, representatives and health advisors., Methods: Five electronic databases were searched on choice-based conjoint analysis studies or discrete choice experiments capturing vaccine preferences of children, adolescents, parents, adults and healthcare professionals for attributes of vaccines or vaccine settings up to September 2020. Data was extracted using a standardized form covering all important aspects of choice experiments. A quality assessment was used to assess the validity of studies. Attributes were categorized into outcome, process, cost and other. The importance of attributes was assessed by the frequency of reporting and statistical significance. Results were compared between high-quality studies and lower-quality studies., Results: A total of 42 studies were included, with the majority conducted in high-income countries after 2010 (resp. n = 34 and n = 37). Preferences of representatives were studied in nearly half of the studies (47.6%), followed by vaccinees (35.7%) and health advisors (9.5%). Sixteen high-quality studies passed the quality assessment. Outcome- and cost- related attributes such as vaccine effectiveness, vaccine risk, cost and protection duration were most often statistically significant across both target groups, with vaccine effectiveness being the most important. Risks associated with vaccination, such as side effects, were more often statistically significant in studies targeting vaccinees, while cost-related attributes were more often statistically significant in studies of representatives. Process-related attributes such as vaccine accessibility and time were least important across both target groups., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review in which vaccine preferences of different target groups were assessed and compared. The same attributes were most important for vaccine decisions of vaccinees and representatives, with only minor differences in level of evidence for vaccine risk and cost. Future research on vaccine preferences of health advisors and/or among target groups in low-resource settings would give insight into the generalizability of current findings., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive description of the multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy, ZMILE., Rationale or Theory: Acquiring self-management skills has been shown to play a vital role in enabling patients with epilepsy overcoming (health-related) struggles in daily life and coping with limitations their condition poses on them. ZMILE is a course consisting of education (to increase concordance to treatment), goal-setting (proactive coping), and self-monitoring., Resources Needed: The course is guided by two nurse practitioners and each patient is allowed to bring one family member or friend. Self-monitoring plays an important role and can be done through e-Health tools or written diaries., Processes Involved: During and after the course, patients are required to work toward a personally defined goal using a five-step approach by means of pro-active coping. Moreover, patients are expected to use self-monitoring tools to reflect on their own behavior and identify ways to optimize medication intake when required., Quantification: ZMILE is provided in an outpatient setting over five weekly group sessions and one booster session. From the start, patients are encouraged to set individual goals. Each group session will have a different theme but part of every session is reflecting on personal goals and to learn from eachother., Conclusions: The ZMILE-intervention has been evaluated and may be a promising intervention in terms of effectiveness and feasibility for adults with epilepsy, relatives, and professionals. We present the adapted version which can be implemented in clinical practice.

Little is known about the role of (economic) information or evidence in the different stages of the decision-making process on vaccine introduction. By conducting a document analysis on the public decision-making process of introducing human Papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine into the national vaccination program (NVP) in the Netherlands, we aim to gain insight into which information plays a role during the introduction of a vaccination programme. A document analysis was performed on the public decision-making process regarding the introduction of HPV vaccine into the NVP in the Netherlands. Information used or asked for by various stakeholders during different stages of the policymaking process was identified. In total, 42 documents were found, analyzed and synthesized, for the period between August 2006 and September 2009. Documents were analyzed using directed content analysis based on eight broad categories of criteria used in decision-making frameworks for introducing a vaccine. Our analysis demonstrates that a wide variety of stakeholders is involved in the process. Financial or economic issues were stipulated in 64.3% of the documents and information on vaccine characteristics were discussed in 59.5%. Economic information from economic evaluations was discussed most (47.6%). Based on our analysis, it can be concluded that economic information, in particular information from economic evaluations, played an important role in the decision-making process regarding the introduction of HPV-vaccination., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate how the societal perspective is conceptualized in economic evaluations and to assess how intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs), that is, the costs and benefits pertaining to sectors outside the healthcare sector, impact their results., Methods: Based on a search in July 2015 using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO, a systematic literature review was performed for economic evaluations which were conducted from a societal perspective. Conceptualizations were assessed in NVivo version 11 using conventional and directed content analysis. Trial-based evaluations in the fields of musculoskeletal and mental disorders were analyzed further, focusing on the way ICBs impact the results of economic evaluations., Results: A total of 107 studies were assessed, of which 74 (69.1 percent) provided conceptualizations of the societal perspective. These varied in types of costs included and in descriptions of cost bearers. Labor productivity costs were included in seventy-two studies (67.3 percent), while only thirty-eight studies (35.5 percent) included other ICBs, most of which entailed informal care and/or social care costs. ICBs within the educational and criminal justice sectors were each included five times. Most of the trial-based evaluations analyzed further (n = 21 of 28) reported productivity costs. In nine, these took up more than 50 percent of total costs. In several studies, criminal justice and informal care costs were also important., Conclusions: There is great variety in the way the societal perspective is conceptualized and interpreted within economic evaluations. Use of the term "societal perspective" is often related to including merely productivity costs, while other ICBs could be relevant as well.

Understanding the most important economic impacts of vaccines can provide relevant information to stakeholders when selecting vaccine immunization strategies from a broader perspective. This study was therefore designed to first identify economic impacts to vaccinated individuals and, second, assess the relative importance of these economic impacts. A four-step approach was used, including a review of the literature, a pilot study, and expert consultation. As a fourth step, a survey utilizing a best-worst scaling was conducted among 26 different stakeholders to assess the relative importance of the identified economic impacts. In each of the 15 choice tasks, participants were asked to choose the most important and the least important economic impact from a set of four from the master list. We identified 23 economic impacts relevant for vaccine introduction. Four domains were identified, namely, health related benefits to vaccinated individuals, short- and long-term productivity gains, community or health systems externalities, and broader economic indicators. The first domain was seen as especially important with mortality, health care expenditure, and morbidity ranking in the top three overall. In conclusion, our study suggests that domain A "health related benefits to vaccinated individuals" are valued as more important than the other economic impacts., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Background: Current health economic evaluation guidelines mainly concentrate on immediate health gains and cost savings for the individual involved in the intervention. However, it has been argued that these guidelines are too narrow to capture the full impact of vaccination in low and middle income countries. The inclusion of broader economic impact of vaccines (BEIV) has therefore been proposed. Some examples of these are productivity-related gains, macro-economic impact, and different externalities. Despite their potency, the extent to which such benefits can and should be incorporated into economic evaluations of vaccination is still unclear. This mixed methods study aims to assess the relevance of BEIV to different stakeholders involved in the vaccine introduction decision making process., Methods: In this mixed method study an internet based survey was sent to attendees of the New and Underutilized Vaccines Initiative meeting in Montreux, Switzerland in 2011. Additionally, semi-structured interviews of 15 minutes each were conducted during the meeting. Study participants included decision makers, experts and funders of vaccines and immunization programs in low and middle income countries. Descriptive analysis of the survey, along with identification of common themes and factors extracted from the interviews and open survey questions was undertaken., Results: Evidence on macro-economic impact, burden of disease and ecological effects were perceived as being most valuable towards aiding decision making for vaccine introduction by the 26 survey respondents. The 14 interviewees highlighted the importance of burden of disease and different types of indirect effects. Furthermore, some new interpretations of BEIVs were discussed, such as the potential negative impact of wastage during immunization programs and the idea of using vaccines as a platform for delivering other types of health interventions. Interviewees also highlighted the importance of using a broader perspective in connection to measuring economic impacts, particularly when attempting to derive the value of newer, more expensive vaccines., Conclusion: According to participants, BEIVs were seen as being equally important as traditional outcome measures used in cost-effectiveness analyses. Such insight can be used to shape research agendas within this field and to eventually create broader, more inclusive practical guidelines for economic evaluations of vaccines.

Aim: To examine the difference between discrete-choice experiments (DCE) and rating scale exercises (RSE) in determining the most important attributes using a case study., Methods: Undergraduate health sciences students were asked to complete a DCE and a RSE. Six potentially important attributes were identified in focus groups. Fourteen unlabelled choice tasks were constructed using a statistically efficient design. Mixed multinomial logistic regression analysis was used for DCE data analysis., Results: In total, 254 undergraduate students filled out the questionnaire. In the DCE, only four attributes were statistically significant, whereas in the RSE, all attributes except one were rated four or higher., Conclusion: Attribute importance differs between DCE and RSE. The DCE had a differentiating effect on the relative importance of the attributes; however, determining relative importance using DCE should be done with caution as a lack of statistically significant difference between levels does not necessarily imply that the attribute is not important.