WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, G/F, Patrick Manson Building (North Wing), 7 Sassoon Road, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China.
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
BMC Med. 2018 Sep 5;16(1):139. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1130-7.
There is increasing interest in estimating the broader benefits of public health interventions beyond those captured in traditional cost-utility analyses. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in principle offers a way to capture such benefits, but a wide variety of methods have been used to monetise benefits in CBAs.
To understand the implications of different CBA approaches for capturing and monetising benefits and their potential impact on public health decision-making, we conducted a CBA of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in the United Kingdom using eight methods for monetising health and economic benefits, valuing productivity loss using either (1) the human capital or (2) the friction cost method, including the value of unpaid work in (3) human capital or (4) friction cost approaches, (5) adjusting for hard-to-fill vacancies in the labour market, (6) using the value of a statistical life, (7) monetising quality-adjusted life years and (8) including both productivity losses and monetised quality-adjusted life years. A previously described transmission dynamic model was used to project the impact of vaccination on cervical cancer outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to capture uncertainty in epidemiologic and economic parameters.
Total benefits of vaccination varied by more than 20-fold (£0.6-12.4 billion) across the approaches. The threshold vaccine cost (maximum vaccine cost at which HPV vaccination has a benefit-to-cost ratio above one) ranged from £69 (95% CI £56-£84) to £1417 (£1291-£1541).
Applying different approaches to monetise benefits in CBA can lead to widely varying outcomes on public health interventions such as vaccination. Use of CBA to inform priority setting in public health will require greater convergence around appropriate methodology to achieve consistency and comparability across different studies.
人们越来越关注在传统成本效用分析之外,估计公共卫生干预措施的更广泛效益。成本效益分析(CBA)原则上提供了一种捕捉此类效益的方法,但在 CBA 中,有各种各样的方法用于货币化效益。
为了了解不同 CBA 方法在捕捉和货币化效益方面的含义,以及它们对公共卫生决策的潜在影响,我们使用八种方法对英国的人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)疫苗接种进行了 CBA,用于货币化健康和经济效益,使用(1)人力资本或(2)摩擦成本方法来衡量生产力损失,包括在(3)人力资本或(4)摩擦成本方法中未付工作的价值,(5)调整劳动力市场中难以填补的空缺,(6)使用生命价值,(7)货币化质量调整生命年,以及(8)包括生产力损失和货币化质量调整生命年。使用先前描述的传播动态模型来预测疫苗接种对宫颈癌结果的影响。进行概率敏感性分析以捕捉流行病学和经济参数的不确定性。
在不同方法中,疫苗接种的总效益差异超过 20 倍(60 亿至 124 亿英镑)。疫苗成本阈值(HPV 疫苗接种的成本效益比高于 1 的最大疫苗成本)范围从 69 英镑(95%CI 56-84 英镑)到 1417 英镑(1291-1541 英镑)。
在 CBA 中应用不同的方法来货币化效益可能会导致疫苗接种等公共卫生干预措施的结果差异很大。使用 CBA 为公共卫生的优先事项提供信息将需要在适当的方法学方面达成更大的共识,以实现不同研究之间的一致性和可比性。