IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Cost-effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for parents deciding about MMR vaccination

Listed author(s):
  • Sandy Tubeuf


    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Richard Edlin

    (School of Population Health, University of Auckland)

  • Swati Shourie

    (Monash Injury Research Institute, Monash University)

  • Francine Cheater

    (School of Nursing Sciences, University of East Anglia)

  • Hilary Bekker

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Cath Jackson

    (York Trials Unit, University of York)

Background: Levels of measles in England and Wales are at their highest for 18 years and strategies targeting the different groups of parents who don’t vaccinate their children continue to be needed. Decision aids for childhood immunisation decisions appear to be effective in achieving vaccine uptake, however their cost effectiveness is unknown. Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a web-based decision aid to increase MMR vaccine uptake. Design and Setting: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial. 50 GP practices in the North of England were randomised to one of three trial arms (decision aid, leaflet, nothing) alongside usual practice. 220 first-time parents (child aged 3 to 12 months) were recruited. Methods: Parents self-reported their contacts with the NHS and other previous/expected resource utilisation; associated costs were calculated. Vaccine uptake was collected from GP practices. Cost-effectiveness is expressed in terms of incremental cost per first vaccine uptake. Multiple imputations were used to account for missing data and findings were adjusted for baseline differences in parents’ levels of decisional conflict for the MMR decision. Results: MMR uptake was highest for those receiving the decision aid (42/42, 100% vs. usual practice 61/62, 98% and leaflet arm 69/75, 92%) and was associated with lower cost. The decision aid has a high chance of being cost-effective regardless of the value placed on obtaining additional vaccinations. Conclusions: The decision aid appears to offer an efficient means of decision support for parents.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: First version, 2014
Download Restriction: Final version published in British Journal of General Practice August 2014 64:e493-e499; doi:10.3399/bjgp14X680977

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Paper provided by Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds in its series Working Papers with number 1401.

in new window

Length: 18 pages
Date of creation: 2014
Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1401
Contact details of provider: Phone: Worsley Building, Level 11, Clarendon Way, LEEDS LS2 9NL
Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 3470
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Andrew Briggs & Taane Clark & Jane Wolstenholme & Philip Clarke, 2003. "Missing.... presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 377-392.
  2. Patrick Royston, 2005. "Multiple imputation of missing values: Update of ice," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 5(4), pages 527-536, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Judy Wright)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.