No abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a well-known, but resource intensive, method for comparing the costs and health outcomes of health interventions. To build on available evidence, researchers are developing methods to transfer CEA across settings; previous methods do not use all available results nor quantify differences across settings. We conducted a meta-regression analysis of published CEAs of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to quantify the effects of factors at the country, intervention, and method-level, and predict incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for HPV vaccination in 195 countries. We used 613 ICERs reported in 75 studies from the Tufts University’s Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry and the Global Health CEA Registry, and extracted an additional 1,215 one-way sensitivity analyses. A five-stage, mixed-effects meta-regression framework was used to predict country-specific ICERs. The probability that HPV vaccination is cost-saving in each country was predicted using a logistic regression model. Covariates for both models included methods and intervention characteristics, and each country’s cervical cancer burden and gross domestic product per capita. ICERs are positively related to vaccine cost, and negatively related to cervical cancer burden. The mean predicted ICER for HPV vaccination is 2017 US$4,217 per DALY averted (95% uncertainty interval (UI): US$773–13,448) globally, and below US$800 per DALY averted in 64 countries. Predicted ICERs are lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, with a population-weighted mean ICER across 46 countries of US$706 per DALY averted (95% UI: $130–2,245), and across five countries of US$489 per DALY averted (95% UI: $90–1,557), respectively. Meta-regression analyses can be conducted on CEA, where one-way sensitivity analyses are used to quantify the effects of factors at the intervention and method-level. Building on all published results, our predictions support introducing and expanding HPV vaccination, especially in countries that are eligible for subsidized vaccines from GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, and Pan American Health Organization.

Background The Ethiopian health extension program (HEP) is an innovative community-based strategy aimed at disease prevention and health promotion. While health extension workers (HEWs) are its front-line workers, the involvement of clinicians remains an integral part. The goals of this study were to: (1) assess the correlation of clinician attitude with predictors and (2) assess the reliability and validity of the survey instrument. Methods A cross-sectional study design was utilized to collect data from a sample of 1239 clinicians using 28 items of attitude questions. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied to create the latent variables. Oblique Promax type rotation with factor loading (> 0.5) was used. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess reliability, with a level of > 0.7 suggesting good reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken, with the values of Root Mean Square Error Administration (RMSEA) < 0.08, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < 0.05, comparative fit index (CFI) 0.9–0.95, and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) 0.9–0.95 suggesting acceptable model fit. A linear regression analysis was conducted. Results EFA produced two latent variables which explained 93.2% of the total variance. The latent variables were labeled as perceived attitude towards the skill of HEWs (F1), and perceived attitude towards the impact of HEP (F2). Internal reliability for the 28 items was reported with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94, and for F1 and F2 it was 0.91 and 0.90, respectively. CFA was done and RMSEA was reported at 0.04, SRMR was 0.03, and CFI and TLI were each 0.97. The value of clinician attitude increased by 3.5, 95% CI (1.5, 5.3), P-value < 0.001 for those who have been exposed to the HEP program than non-exposed. Similarly, clinician attitude was lower for degree holders compared to those with diplomas by − 2.7, 95% CI (− 4.4, − 0.94), P-value < 0.002. Conclusion Clinician attitude increased as exposure to HEP increased. Clinician attitude towards HEP has two latent variables. Furthermore, the assessment tool demonstrated good reliability and validity. In conclusion, it is worthy valued for clinicians to receive orientation about HEP, and researchers and program evaluators can use this assessment tool.