↓ Skip to main content

Incorporating economies of scale in the cost estimation in economic evaluation of PCV and HPV vaccination programmes in the Philippines: a game changer?

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Incorporating economies of scale in the cost estimation in economic evaluation of PCV and HPV vaccination programmes in the Philippines: a game changer?
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12962-018-0087-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thanthima Suwanthawornkul, Naiyana Praditsitthikorn, Wantanee Kulpeng, Manuel Alexander Haasis, Anna Melissa Guerrero, Yot Teerawattananon

Abstract

Many economic evaluations ignore economies of scale in their cost estimation, which means that cost parameters are assumed to have a linear relationship with the level of production. Economies of scale is the situation when the average total cost of producing a product decreases with increasing volume caused by reducing the variable costs due to more efficient operation. This study investigates the significance of applying the economies of scale concept: the saving in costs gained by an increased level of production in economic evaluation of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations. The fixed and variable costs of providing partial (20% coverage) and universal (100% coverage) vaccination programs in the Philippines were estimated using various methods, including costs of conducting questionnaire survey, focus-group discussion, and analysis of secondary data. Costing parameters were utilised as inputs for the two economic evaluation models for PCV and HPV. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and 5-year budget impacts with and without applying economies of scale to the costing parameters for partial and universal coverage were compared in order to determine the effect of these different costing approaches. The program costs of the partial coverage for the two immunisation programs were not very different when applying and not applying the economies of scale concept. Nevertheless, the program costs for universal coverage were 0.26 and 0.32 times lower when applying economies of scale compared to not applying economies of scale for the pneumococcal and human papillomavirus vaccinations, respectively. ICERs varied by up to 98% for pneumococcal vaccinations, whereas the change in ICERs in the human papillomavirus vaccination depended on both the costs of cervical cancer screening and the vaccination program. This results in a significant difference in the 5-year budget impact, accounting for 30 and 40% of reduction in the 5-year budget impact for the pneumococcal and human papillomavirus vaccination programs. This study demonstrated the feasibility and importance of applying economies of scale in the cost estimation in economic evaluation, which would lead to different conclusions in terms of value for money regarding the interventions, particularly with population-wide interventions such as vaccination programs. The economies of scale approach to costing is recommended for the creation of methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 27 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 17 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,860,359
of 23,924,386 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#58
of 446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,950
of 333,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,924,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 333,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.