↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of live oral attenuated human rotavirus vaccine in Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, April 2015
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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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 live oral attenuated human rotavirus vaccine in Tanzania
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12962-015-0033-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

George M Ruhago, Frida N Ngalesoni, Bjarne Robberstad, Ole F Norheim

Abstract

Globally, diarrhoea is the second leading cause of morbidity and mortality, responsible for the annual loss of about 10% of the total global childhood disease burden. In Tanzania, Rotavirus infection is the major cause of severe diarrhoea and diarrhoeal mortality in children under five years. Immunisation can reduce the burden, and Tanzania added rotavirus vaccine to its national immunisation programme in January 2013. This study explores the cost effectiveness of introducing rotavirus vaccine within the Tanzania Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI). We quantified all health system implementation costs, including programme costs, to calculate the cost effectiveness of adding rotavirus immunisation to EPI and the existing provision of diarrhoea treatment (oral rehydration salts and intravenous fluids) to children. We used ingredients and step down costing methods. Cost and coverage data were collected in 2012 at one urban and one rural district hospital and a health centre in Tanzania. We used Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) as the outcome measure and estimated incremental costs and health outcomes using a Markov transition model with weekly cycles up to a five-year time horizon. The average unit cost per vaccine dose at 93% coverage is US$ 8.4, with marked difference between the urban facility US$ 5.2; and the rural facility US$ 9.8. RV1 vaccine added to current diarrhoea treatment is highly cost effective compared to diarrhoea treatment given alone, with incremental cost effectiveness ratio of US$ 112 per DALY averted, varying from US$ 80-218 in sensitivity analysis. The intervention approaches a 100% probability of being cost effective at a much lower level of willingness-to-pay than the US$609 per capita Tanzania gross domestic product (GDP). The combination of rotavirus immunisation with diarrhoea treatment is likely to be cost effective when willingness to pay for health is higher than USD 112 per DALY. Universal coverage of the vaccine will accelerate progress towards achievement of the child health Millennium Development Goals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 114 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 23%
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 25%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 38 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 September 2015.
All research outputs
#4,418,658
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#153
of 423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,468
of 264,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 264,516 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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