Economic evaluations of interventions against influenza at workplaces: systematic review.

S K Ofori, Y W Hung, J S Schwind, K Diallo, D Babatunde, S O Nwaobi, X Hua, K L Sullivan, B J Cowling, G Chowell, I C H Fung
{"title":"Economic evaluations of interventions against influenza at workplaces: systematic review.","authors":"S K Ofori,&nbsp;Y W Hung,&nbsp;J S Schwind,&nbsp;K Diallo,&nbsp;D Babatunde,&nbsp;S O Nwaobi,&nbsp;X Hua,&nbsp;K L Sullivan,&nbsp;B J Cowling,&nbsp;G Chowell,&nbsp;I C H Fung","doi":"10.1093/occmed/kqab163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The burden of influenza is mostly felt by employees and employers because of increased absenteeism rates, loss of productivity and associated direct costs. Even though interventions against influenza among working adults are effective, patronage and compliance to these measures especially vaccination are low compared to other risk groups.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study was aimed to assess evidence of economic evaluations of interventions against influenza virus infection among workers or in the workplace setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline for systematic reviews was followed. Three databases, PubMed, Web of Science and EconLit, were searched using keywords to identify relevant articles from inception till 25 October 2020. Original peer-reviewed papers that conducted economic evaluations of influenza interventions using cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis methods focused on working-age adults or work settings were eligible for inclusion. Two independent teams of co-authors extracted and synthesized data from identified studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four articles were included: 21 were cost-benefit analyses and 3 examined cost-effectiveness analyses. Two papers also presented additional cost-utility analysis. Most of the studies were pharmaceutical interventions (n = 23) primarily focused on vaccination programs while one study was a non-pharmaceutical intervention examining the benefit of paid sick leave. All but two studies reported that interventions against influenza virus infection at the workplace were cost-saving and cost-effective regardless of the analytic approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Further cost-effectiveness research in non-pharmaceutical interventions against influenza in workplace settings is warranted. There is a need to develop standardized methods for reporting economic evaluation methods to ensure comparability and applicability of future research findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":520727,"journal":{"name":"Occupational medicine (Oxford, England)","volume":" ","pages":"70-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Occupational medicine (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The burden of influenza is mostly felt by employees and employers because of increased absenteeism rates, loss of productivity and associated direct costs. Even though interventions against influenza among working adults are effective, patronage and compliance to these measures especially vaccination are low compared to other risk groups.

Aims: This study was aimed to assess evidence of economic evaluations of interventions against influenza virus infection among workers or in the workplace setting.

Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline for systematic reviews was followed. Three databases, PubMed, Web of Science and EconLit, were searched using keywords to identify relevant articles from inception till 25 October 2020. Original peer-reviewed papers that conducted economic evaluations of influenza interventions using cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis methods focused on working-age adults or work settings were eligible for inclusion. Two independent teams of co-authors extracted and synthesized data from identified studies.

Results: Twenty-four articles were included: 21 were cost-benefit analyses and 3 examined cost-effectiveness analyses. Two papers also presented additional cost-utility analysis. Most of the studies were pharmaceutical interventions (n = 23) primarily focused on vaccination programs while one study was a non-pharmaceutical intervention examining the benefit of paid sick leave. All but two studies reported that interventions against influenza virus infection at the workplace were cost-saving and cost-effective regardless of the analytic approach.

Conclusions: Further cost-effectiveness research in non-pharmaceutical interventions against influenza in workplace settings is warranted. There is a need to develop standardized methods for reporting economic evaluation methods to ensure comparability and applicability of future research findings.

工作场所预防流感干预措施的经济评价:系统评价。
背景:由于缺勤率增加、生产力损失和相关的直接成本,雇员和雇主主要感受到流感的负担。尽管在工作成年人中预防流感的干预措施是有效的,但与其他风险群体相比,对这些措施,特别是疫苗接种的支持和遵守程度较低。目的:本研究旨在评估在工人或工作场所环境中预防流感病毒感染的干预措施的经济评估证据。方法:采用系统评价和meta分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)系统评价报告指南。使用关键词搜索PubMed、Web of Science和EconLit三个数据库,以确定从创建到2020年10月25日的相关文章。采用以工作年龄成人或工作环境为重点的成本效益、成本效益或成本效用分析方法对流感干预措施进行经济评估的同行评议的原始论文符合入选条件。两个独立的共同作者小组从确定的研究中提取和综合数据。结果:纳入文献24篇,其中成本-效益分析21篇,检验成本-效果分析3篇。两篇论文还提出了额外的成本效用分析。大多数研究是药物干预(n = 23),主要关注疫苗接种计划,而一项研究是非药物干预,研究带薪病假的好处。除两项研究外,所有研究都报告说,无论采用何种分析方法,在工作场所预防流感病毒感染的干预措施都节省了成本,具有成本效益。结论:在工作场所对流感的非药物干预进行进一步的成本效益研究是必要的。有必要制定报告经济评价方法的标准化方法,以确保未来研究结果的可比性和适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信