↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in Germany

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in Germany
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12962-017-0080-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver Damm, Johannes Horn, Rafael T. Mikolajczyk, Mirjam E. E. Kretzschmar, Andreas M. Kaufmann, Yvonne Deleré, Bernhard Ultsch, Ole Wichmann, Alexander Krämer, Wolfgang Greiner

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in addition to the current cervical cancer screening programme in Germany using a dynamic transmission model. Based on a mathematical model simulating the transmission dynamics and the natural history of HPV infection and associated diseases (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, cervical cancer, and genital warts), we estimated the epidemiological and economic consequences of HPV vaccination with both the quadrivalent and bivalent vaccines. In our base case analysis, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating 12-year-old girls with a 3-dose schedule. In sensitivity analysis, we also evaluated the use of a 2-dose schedule and assessed the impact of vaccinating boys. From a health care payer perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of a 3-dose schedule were €34,249 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the bivalent and €14,711 per QALY for the quadrivalent vaccine. Inclusion of indirect costs decreased ICERs by up to 40%. When adopting a health care payer perspective, ICERs of a 2-dose approach decreased to €19,450 per QALY for the bivalent and to €3645 per QALY for the quadrivalent vaccine. From a societal perspective, a 2-dose approach using the quadrivalent vaccine was a cost-saving strategy while using the bivalent vaccine resulted in an ICER of €13,248 per QALY. Irrespective of the perspective adopted, additional vaccination of boys resulted in ICERs exceeding €50,000 per QALY, except for scenarios with low coverage (20%) in girls. Our model results suggest that routine HPV vaccination of 12-year-old girls with three doses is likely to be cost-effective in Germany. Due to the additional impact on genital warts, the quadrivalent vaccine appeared to be more cost-effective than the bivalent vaccine. A 2-dose schedule of the quadrivalent vaccine might even lead to cost savings when adopting a societal perspective. The cost-effectiveness of additional vaccination of boys was highly dependent on the coverage in girls.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Professor 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 26 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2021.
All research outputs
#5,514,896
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#176
of 431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,749
of 315,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them