Table 2

Cost analyses of vaccination programs for healthcare workers
First author [Reference] Stover [[17]] Ferson [[18]] Celikbas [[19]] Alp [[20]]
Country USA Australia Turkey Turkey
Year 1994 1994 2006 2012
WB income group High High Upper middle Upper middle
Comparators 1. Screen & vaccinate 1. Vaccinate all 1. Screen & vaccinate 1. Screen & vaccinate
2. Blind vaccination 2. Vaccinate if no disease history 2. Blind vaccination 2. Blind vaccination
3. Test if no disease history then vaccinate
4. Test all and vaccinate
Perspective Payer* Payer* Payer* Payer*
Cost components measured Vaccine; laboratory; employee health services Vaccine; venipuncture; laboratory consumables; personnel (serology) Vaccine; serology Vaccine; serology
Method of cost estimation Micro-costing Micro-costing Micro-costing Micro-costing
Time period for costing One-time vaccination One-time vaccination One-time vaccination One-time vaccination
Discounting (Rate) NA NA NA NA
Results (2012 US$) 1. $24 1. $5 – $37 1. $14 1. $13
2. $71 2. $5 – $28 2. $18 2. $9
3. $5 – $28
4. $9 - $42
Stated conclusion Screen and vaccinate preferable A combination if screening and history is preferable Blind vaccination modestly increased costs Blind vaccination was preferable
Sponsor NR NR TSRC None

*Not explicitly reported but inferred.

WB, World Bank; NR, Not Reported; NA, Not Applicable; TSRC, Turkish Science Research Council.

Babigumira et al.

Babigumira et al. BMC Public Health 2013 13:406   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-406

Open Data