Cost-effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for parents deciding about MMR vaccination
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.
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.
|Date of creation:||2014|
|Contact details of provider:|| Phone: Worsley Building, Level 11, Clarendon Way, LEEDS LS2 9NL|
Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 3470
Web page: http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/auhe
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.:
- 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.
- Patrick Royston, 2005. "Multiple imputation of missing values: Update of ice," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 5(4), pages 527-536, December.
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.