The cost-effectiveness of varicella screening and vaccination in U.S. Army recruits
Varicella outbreaks in the U.S. Army disrupt training, reduce readiness, and represent substantial costs. Vaccination of susceptible individuals may be cost-effective. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing screening of all incoming recruits and vaccination of susceptible individuals a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Military medicine 2000-04, Vol.165 (4), p.309-315 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 315 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 309 |
container_title | Military medicine |
container_volume | 165 |
creator | HOWELL, M. R LEE, T GAYDOS, C. A NANG, R. N |
description | Varicella outbreaks in the U.S. Army disrupt training, reduce readiness, and represent substantial costs. Vaccination of susceptible individuals may be cost-effective. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing screening of all incoming recruits and vaccination of susceptible individuals at either initial entry training (IET) or medical entrance processing station (MEPS), universal vaccination at IET, and no intervention. Primary health outcomes included the number of varicella cases prevented during the 8-week initial training period. The varicella hospitalization rate was 21.6 per 10,000 per year. In 100,000 recruits, 36 cases of varicella are expected at a cost of $181,000 in the absence of an intervention. Screening at IET would prevent 4 cases but would cost an additional $3,255,000 more than no intervention. Screening at MEPS would prevent 3 cases and save $521,000 per case prevented during the IET but would cost $2,734,000 more than no intervention. Universal vaccination would prevent 2 cases but would cost $15,858,000 more than MEPS screening and $18,592,000 more than no intervention. These results are robust. Cost per case of varicella prevented ranged from $390,000 to $7.9 million. Scarce prevention resources could be more cost-effectively allocated to other prevention programs. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/milmed/165.4.309 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71093963</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71093963</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-e94ff486fe2fe80cc26756a0f3f02aa401824e2e1d9b652a38e3d2157ae25cf43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1LxDAQhoMouq7ePUkQ8dY6-WjaHkX8AsHDKngLMTvRSJtq0gr-e7PuguBpYOaZd4aHkCMGJYNWnPe-63F5zlRVylJAu0VmrBVQKCaet8kMgKtCQl3tkf2U3gGYbBu2S_YYNCAAmhlZPL4htUMaC3QO7ei_MGBKdHD0y0RvsesMTTYiBh9eqQnL3LfWBzP6IVAf6FO5KOlF7L9pRBsnP6YDsuNMl_BwU-fk6frq8fK2uH-4ubu8uC-saEU-2ErnZKMccocNWMtVXSkDTjjgxkhgDZfIkS3bF1VxIxoUS86q2iCvrJNiTs7WuR9x-Jwwjbr36ffjgMOUdL1y1CqRwZN_4PswxZB_05zVIJXgTYZgDdk4pBTR6Y_oexO_NQO9StJr2zrb1lJn23nleJM7vawmfwtrvRk43QAmWdO5aIL16Y8TUgAH8QOvXIhB</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>217046328</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The cost-effectiveness of varicella screening and vaccination in U.S. Army recruits</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>HOWELL, M. R ; LEE, T ; GAYDOS, C. A ; NANG, R. N</creator><creatorcontrib>HOWELL, M. R ; LEE, T ; GAYDOS, C. A ; NANG, R. N</creatorcontrib><description>Varicella outbreaks in the U.S. Army disrupt training, reduce readiness, and represent substantial costs. Vaccination of susceptible individuals may be cost-effective. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing screening of all incoming recruits and vaccination of susceptible individuals at either initial entry training (IET) or medical entrance processing station (MEPS), universal vaccination at IET, and no intervention. Primary health outcomes included the number of varicella cases prevented during the 8-week initial training period. The varicella hospitalization rate was 21.6 per 10,000 per year. In 100,000 recruits, 36 cases of varicella are expected at a cost of $181,000 in the absence of an intervention. Screening at IET would prevent 4 cases but would cost an additional $3,255,000 more than no intervention. Screening at MEPS would prevent 3 cases and save $521,000 per case prevented during the IET but would cost $2,734,000 more than no intervention. Universal vaccination would prevent 2 cases but would cost $15,858,000 more than MEPS screening and $18,592,000 more than no intervention. These results are robust. Cost per case of varicella prevented ranged from $390,000 to $7.9 million. Scarce prevention resources could be more cost-effectively allocated to other prevention programs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0026-4075</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1930-613X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/milmed/165.4.309</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10803008</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MMEDA9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bethesda, MD: Association of Military Surgeons</publisher><subject>Absenteeism ; Analysis of Variance ; Biological and medical sciences ; Chickenpox - economics ; Chickenpox - epidemiology ; Chickenpox - prevention & control ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Decision Support Techniques ; Disease Outbreaks - prevention & control ; Health Care Costs - statistics & numerical data ; Hospitalization - economics ; Human viral diseases ; Humans ; Infectious diseases ; Mass Screening - economics ; Mass Screening - methods ; Medical sciences ; Military Medicine - economics ; Military Medicine - methods ; Military Personnel ; Morbidity ; Program Evaluation ; United States - epidemiology ; Vaccination - economics ; Vaccination - methods ; Viral diseases ; Viral diseases with cutaneous or mucosal lesions and viral diseases of the eye</subject><ispartof>Military medicine, 2000-04, Vol.165 (4), p.309-315</ispartof><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Association of Military Surgeons of the United States Apr 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-e94ff486fe2fe80cc26756a0f3f02aa401824e2e1d9b652a38e3d2157ae25cf43</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1343020$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10803008$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>HOWELL, M. R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEE, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GAYDOS, C. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NANG, R. N</creatorcontrib><title>The cost-effectiveness of varicella screening and vaccination in U.S. Army recruits</title><title>Military medicine</title><addtitle>Mil Med</addtitle><description>Varicella outbreaks in the U.S. Army disrupt training, reduce readiness, and represent substantial costs. Vaccination of susceptible individuals may be cost-effective. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing screening of all incoming recruits and vaccination of susceptible individuals at either initial entry training (IET) or medical entrance processing station (MEPS), universal vaccination at IET, and no intervention. Primary health outcomes included the number of varicella cases prevented during the 8-week initial training period. The varicella hospitalization rate was 21.6 per 10,000 per year. In 100,000 recruits, 36 cases of varicella are expected at a cost of $181,000 in the absence of an intervention. Screening at IET would prevent 4 cases but would cost an additional $3,255,000 more than no intervention. Screening at MEPS would prevent 3 cases and save $521,000 per case prevented during the IET but would cost $2,734,000 more than no intervention. Universal vaccination would prevent 2 cases but would cost $15,858,000 more than MEPS screening and $18,592,000 more than no intervention. These results are robust. Cost per case of varicella prevented ranged from $390,000 to $7.9 million. Scarce prevention resources could be more cost-effectively allocated to other prevention programs.</description><subject>Absenteeism</subject><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Chickenpox - economics</subject><subject>Chickenpox - epidemiology</subject><subject>Chickenpox - prevention & control</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Decision Support Techniques</subject><subject>Disease Outbreaks - prevention & control</subject><subject>Health Care Costs - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Hospitalization - economics</subject><subject>Human viral diseases</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Mass Screening - economics</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Military Medicine - economics</subject><subject>Military Medicine - methods</subject><subject>Military Personnel</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>United States - epidemiology</subject><subject>Vaccination - economics</subject><subject>Vaccination - methods</subject><subject>Viral diseases</subject><subject>Viral diseases with cutaneous or mucosal lesions and viral diseases of the eye</subject><issn>0026-4075</issn><issn>1930-613X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE1LxDAQhoMouq7ePUkQ8dY6-WjaHkX8AsHDKngLMTvRSJtq0gr-e7PuguBpYOaZd4aHkCMGJYNWnPe-63F5zlRVylJAu0VmrBVQKCaet8kMgKtCQl3tkf2U3gGYbBu2S_YYNCAAmhlZPL4htUMaC3QO7ei_MGBKdHD0y0RvsesMTTYiBh9eqQnL3LfWBzP6IVAf6FO5KOlF7L9pRBsnP6YDsuNMl_BwU-fk6frq8fK2uH-4ubu8uC-saEU-2ErnZKMccocNWMtVXSkDTjjgxkhgDZfIkS3bF1VxIxoUS86q2iCvrJNiTs7WuR9x-Jwwjbr36ffjgMOUdL1y1CqRwZN_4PswxZB_05zVIJXgTYZgDdk4pBTR6Y_oexO_NQO9StJr2zrb1lJn23nleJM7vawmfwtrvRk43QAmWdO5aIL16Y8TUgAH8QOvXIhB</recordid><startdate>20000401</startdate><enddate>20000401</enddate><creator>HOWELL, M. R</creator><creator>LEE, T</creator><creator>GAYDOS, C. A</creator><creator>NANG, R. N</creator><general>Association of Military Surgeons</general><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000401</creationdate><title>The cost-effectiveness of varicella screening and vaccination in U.S. Army recruits</title><author>HOWELL, M. R ; LEE, T ; GAYDOS, C. A ; NANG, R. N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-e94ff486fe2fe80cc26756a0f3f02aa401824e2e1d9b652a38e3d2157ae25cf43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Absenteeism</topic><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Chickenpox - economics</topic><topic>Chickenpox - epidemiology</topic><topic>Chickenpox - prevention & control</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Decision Support Techniques</topic><topic>Disease Outbreaks - prevention & control</topic><topic>Health Care Costs - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Hospitalization - economics</topic><topic>Human viral diseases</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Mass Screening - economics</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Military Medicine - economics</topic><topic>Military Medicine - methods</topic><topic>Military Personnel</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>United States - epidemiology</topic><topic>Vaccination - economics</topic><topic>Vaccination - methods</topic><topic>Viral diseases</topic><topic>Viral diseases with cutaneous or mucosal lesions and viral diseases of the eye</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>HOWELL, M. R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEE, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GAYDOS, C. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NANG, R. N</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Military medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>HOWELL, M. R</au><au>LEE, T</au><au>GAYDOS, C. A</au><au>NANG, R. N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The cost-effectiveness of varicella screening and vaccination in U.S. Army recruits</atitle><jtitle>Military medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Mil Med</addtitle><date>2000-04-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>165</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>309</spage><epage>315</epage><pages>309-315</pages><issn>0026-4075</issn><eissn>1930-613X</eissn><coden>MMEDA9</coden><abstract>Varicella outbreaks in the U.S. Army disrupt training, reduce readiness, and represent substantial costs. Vaccination of susceptible individuals may be cost-effective. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing screening of all incoming recruits and vaccination of susceptible individuals at either initial entry training (IET) or medical entrance processing station (MEPS), universal vaccination at IET, and no intervention. Primary health outcomes included the number of varicella cases prevented during the 8-week initial training period. The varicella hospitalization rate was 21.6 per 10,000 per year. In 100,000 recruits, 36 cases of varicella are expected at a cost of $181,000 in the absence of an intervention. Screening at IET would prevent 4 cases but would cost an additional $3,255,000 more than no intervention. Screening at MEPS would prevent 3 cases and save $521,000 per case prevented during the IET but would cost $2,734,000 more than no intervention. Universal vaccination would prevent 2 cases but would cost $15,858,000 more than MEPS screening and $18,592,000 more than no intervention. These results are robust. Cost per case of varicella prevented ranged from $390,000 to $7.9 million. Scarce prevention resources could be more cost-effectively allocated to other prevention programs.</abstract><cop>Bethesda, MD</cop><pub>Association of Military Surgeons</pub><pmid>10803008</pmid><doi>10.1093/milmed/165.4.309</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0026-4075 |
ispartof | Military medicine, 2000-04, Vol.165 (4), p.309-315 |
issn | 0026-4075 1930-613X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71093963 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Absenteeism Analysis of Variance Biological and medical sciences Chickenpox - economics Chickenpox - epidemiology Chickenpox - prevention & control Cost-Benefit Analysis Decision Support Techniques Disease Outbreaks - prevention & control Health Care Costs - statistics & numerical data Hospitalization - economics Human viral diseases Humans Infectious diseases Mass Screening - economics Mass Screening - methods Medical sciences Military Medicine - economics Military Medicine - methods Military Personnel Morbidity Program Evaluation United States - epidemiology Vaccination - economics Vaccination - methods Viral diseases Viral diseases with cutaneous or mucosal lesions and viral diseases of the eye |
title | The cost-effectiveness of varicella screening and vaccination in U.S. Army recruits |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T19%3A54%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20cost-effectiveness%20of%20varicella%20screening%20and%20vaccination%20in%20U.S.%20Army%20recruits&rft.jtitle=Military%20medicine&rft.au=HOWELL,%20M.%20R&rft.date=2000-04-01&rft.volume=165&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=309&rft.epage=315&rft.pages=309-315&rft.issn=0026-4075&rft.eissn=1930-613X&rft.coden=MMEDA9&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/milmed/165.4.309&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71093963%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=217046328&rft_id=info:pmid/10803008&rfr_iscdi=true |