Jennifer C Spencer1,2, Noel T Brewer3,4, Justin G Trogdon2,4, Morris Weinberger2, Tamera Coyne-Beasley5, Stephanie B Wheeler2,4. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts; jspencer@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Departments of Health Policy and Management and. 3. Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health and. 4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and. 5. Division of Adolescent Medicine, Departments of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to prioritize interventions for increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage based on cost-effectiveness from a US state perspective to inform decisions by policy makers. METHODS: We developed a dynamic simulation model of HPV transmission and progression scaled to a medium-sized US state (5 million individuals). We modeled outcomes over 50 years comparing no intervention to a one-year implementation of centralized reminder and recall for HPV vaccination, school-located HPV vaccination, or quality improvement (QI) visits to primary care clinics. We used probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess a range of plausible outcomes associated with each intervention. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated relative to a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold; $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) . RESULTS: All interventions were cost-effective, relative to no intervention. QI visits had the lowest cost and cost per QALY gained ($1538 versus no intervention). Statewide implementation of centralized reminder and recall cost $28 289 per QALY gained versus QI visits. School-located vaccination had the highest cost but was cost-effective at $18 337 per QALY gained versus QI visits. Scaling to the US population, interventions could avert 3000 to 14 000 future HPV cancers. When varying intervention cost and impact over feasible ranges, interventions were typically preferred to no intervention, but cost-effectiveness varied between intervention strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Three interventions for increasing HPV vaccine coverage were cost-effective and offered substantial health benefits. Policy makers seeking to increase HPV vaccination should, at minimum, dedicate additional funding for QI visits, which are consistently effective at low cost and may additionally consider more resource-intensive interventions (reminder and recall or school-located vaccination).
OBJECTIVES: We sought to prioritize interventions for increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage based on cost-effectiveness from a US state perspective to inform decisions by policy makers. METHODS: We developed a dynamic simulation model of HPV transmission and progression scaled to a medium-sized US state (5 million individuals). We modeled outcomes over 50 years comparing no intervention to a one-year implementation of centralized reminder and recall for HPV vaccination, school-located HPV vaccination, or quality improvement (QI) visits to primary care clinics. We used probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess a range of plausible outcomes associated with each intervention. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated relative to a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold; $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) . RESULTS: All interventions were cost-effective, relative to no intervention. QI visits had the lowest cost and cost per QALY gained ($1538 versus no intervention). Statewide implementation of centralized reminder and recall cost $28 289 per QALY gained versus QI visits. School-located vaccination had the highest cost but was cost-effective at $18 337 per QALY gained versus QI visits. Scaling to the US population, interventions could avert 3000 to 14 000 future HPV cancers. When varying intervention cost and impact over feasible ranges, interventions were typically preferred to no intervention, but cost-effectiveness varied between intervention strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Three interventions for increasing HPV vaccine coverage were cost-effective and offered substantial health benefits. Policy makers seeking to increase HPV vaccination should, at minimum, dedicate additional funding for QI visits, which are consistently effective at low cost and may additionally consider more resource-intensive interventions (reminder and recall or school-located vaccination).
Authors: P A Briss; L E Rodewald; A R Hinman; A M Shefer; R A Strikas; R R Bernier; V G Carande-Kulis; H R Yusuf; S M Ndiaye; S M Williams Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Beth E Meyerson; Gregory D Zimet; Gurprit S Multani; Caleb Levell; Carrie A Lawrence; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2015-05-05
Authors: Ruth Koepke; Ashley B Petit; Roman A Ayele; Jens C Eickhoff; Stephanie L Schauer; Matthew J Verdon; Daniel J Hopfensperger; James H Conway; Jeffrey P Davis Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2015 May-Jun
Authors: Marc Brisson; Élodie Bénard; Mélanie Drolet; Johannes A Bogaards; Iacopo Baussano; Simopekka Vänskä; Mark Jit; Marie-Claude Boily; Megan A Smith; Johannes Berkhof; Karen Canfell; Harrell W Chesson; Emily A Burger; Yoon H Choi; Birgitte Freiesleben De Blasio; Sake J De Vlas; Giorgio Guzzetta; Jan A C Hontelez; Johannes Horn; Martin R Jepsen; Jane J Kim; Fulvio Lazzarato; Suzette M Matthijsse; Rafael Mikolajczyk; Andrew Pavelyev; Matthew Pillsbury; Leigh Anne Shafer; Stephen P Tully; Hugo C Turner; Cara Usher; Cathal Walsh Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2016-09-27
Authors: Tanja Y Walker; Laurie D Elam-Evans; David Yankey; Lauri E Markowitz; Charnetta L Williams; Benjamin Fredua; James A Singleton; Shannon Stokley Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Jennifer C Spencer; Noel T Brewer; Tamera Coyne-Beasley; Justin G Trogdon; Morris Weinberger; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Stephanie A S Staras; Eric Richardson; Lisa J Merlo; Jiang Bian; Lindsay A Thompson; Janice L Krieger; Matthew J Gurka; Ashley H Sanders; Elizabeth A Shenkman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-01-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Thomas G Boyce; Ben Christianson; Kayla E Hanson; Denise Dunn; Elizabeth Polter; Jeffrey J VanWormer; Charnetta L Williams; Edward A Belongia; Huong Q McLean Journal: Vaccine X Date: 2022-06-11