Skip to main content

Table 2 Coverage and cost characteristics of included studies

From: Systematic review of the costs and effectiveness of interventions to increase infant vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries

Publication Year First author Vaccine / intervention breakout Baseline coverage Endline coverage Incremental coverage Intervention cost (2017 USD) Intervention cost per person exposed (2017 USD) ICER
2009 Andersson Measles    22% $86,968 $162.25 $124.86
   DPT3    23%    $119.43
2010 Banerjee Intervention A 2% 18% 11% $41,109 $83.70 $1.09
   Intervention B 0% 39% 34% $66,460 $41.89 $0.66
   Control 1% 6%     
2007 Barhama Mexico: MCV treatment areas 92% 91% 3%b $2303 million $44.07 *c
   Mexico: MCV control areas 95% 91%     
   Nicaragua: FVC treatment areas 54% 83% 11% $5,007,901 $67.11 *d
   Nicaragua: FVC control areas 55% 73%     
2017 Byberg   84% 97% 13% $76,994e $1.41 $3.29
2014 Carnellf DPT3 45% 65% 8% $26,049,434g *h *
   Measles 46% 64% 13%   
2003 Drain Auto-disable syringes    16% Not stated   $78.06
   Mixed syringes    17%   $5.03
2014 Hayford   43% 99% 56% $36,190   $41.40
2013 Khan     72% $680,581 $3.94 $5.50
2005 Levin   68% 80% 12% $11,709i $0.12 $1.00
2011 Owais Intervention 77% 72% 19% $1.15   *j
   Control 76% 52%     
2007 Pandey Intervention 53% 72% 20% $5997 $1.38 $6.88
   Control 47% 46%     
2018 Powell-Jackson Intervention 0% 43% 15% $11,137 $23.64k $161.95l
  Control 0% 28%     
2009 Rainey   38% 65% 27% Not stated $3.72 $9.01
2006 Soeung     16% $186,031 $2.20 $13.75
  1. DPT3 diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccination third dose, MCV measles-containing vaccine, FVC fully-vaccinated children, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
  2. *Data required to calculate ICER not included in study
  3. aSelected interventions listed here; full results can be found in the paper
  4. bEndline levels lower than baseline levels for both treatment and control areas, but the “program did lead to an equalization of vaccination rates between the treatment and control group, despite the treatment group’s coverage rate being 3 percentage points lower than in the control area at baseline” [44]
  5. cIntervention contained a package of health services (immunization and other health activities). However, intervention costs were given only at an aggregate level and therefore immunization ICERs could not be calculated
  6. dIntervention contained a package of health services (immunization and other health activities). However, intervention costs were given only at an aggregate level and therefore immunization ICERs could not be calculated
  7. eIntervention cost minus hospital cost savings (both in USD 2017)
  8. fBaseline and endline coverage estimates compiled from aggregating values for children 12–23 months in 6 intervention / control areas
  9. gIncludes both vaccination and non-vaccination interventions
  10. hSize of the population exposed to the intervention not stated
  11. iOnly one province (of three described in study) was scaling up pre-existing immunization services. However, costs were reported as an annual net cost to the government for the new device across all three provinces. We conservatively assumed this aggregate cost was specific to the single relevant province for the cost per person exposed and ICER calculations
  12. jCosts were only reported per community health worker. Costs per exposed child could not be determined
  13. kCost per mother given the information intervention
  14. lCost per additional child vaccinated with DPT3
\