MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110959817 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(14)70237-2

Cost-effectiveness of female human papillomavirus vaccination in 179 countries: a PRIME modelling study

2014· article· en· W2110959817 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Jit, Marc Brisson, Allison Portnoy, Raymond Hutubessy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWorld Health OrganizationGAVI Alliance
KeywordsVaccinationCervical cancerMedicineCost effectivenessDemographyIncidence (geometry)Vaccine efficacyDeveloping countryCost-effectiveness analysisEnvironmental healthCohortCancerImmunologyEconomic growthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in settings with the highest burden of HPV is not universal, partly because of the absence of quantitative estimates of country-specific effects on health and economic costs. We aimed to develop and validate a simple generic model of such effects that could be used and understood in a range of settings with little external support. METHODS: We developed the Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics (PRIME) model to assess cost-effectiveness and health effects of vaccination of girls against HPV before sexual debut in terms of burden of cervical cancer and mortality. PRIME models incidence according to proposed vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18, vaccine coverage, cervical cancer incidence and mortality, and HPV type distribution. It assumes lifelong vaccine protection and no changes to other screening programmes or vaccine uptake. We validated PRIME against existing reports of HPV vaccination cost-effectiveness, projected outcomes for 179 countries (assuming full vaccination of 12-year-old girls), and outcomes for 71 phase 2 GAVI-eligible countries (using vaccine uptake data from the GAVI Alliance). We assessed differences between countries in terms of cost-effectiveness and health effects. FINDINGS: In validation, PRIME reproduced cost-effectiveness conclusions for 24 of 26 countries from 17 published studies, and for all 72 countries in a published study of GAVI-eligible countries. Vaccination of a cohort of 58 million 12-year-old girls in 179 countries prevented 690,000 cases of cervical cancer and 420,000 deaths during their lifetime (mostly in low-income or middle-income countries), at a net cost of US$4 billion. HPV vaccination was very cost effective (with every disability-adjusted life-year averted costing less than the gross domestic product per head) in 156 (87%) of 179 countries. Introduction of the vaccine in countries without national HPV vaccination at present would prevent substantially more cases of cervical cancer than in countries with such programmes, although the disparity has narrowed since 2012. If 71 phase 2 GAVI-eligible countries adopt vaccination according to forecasts, then in 2070 GAVI Alliance-funded vaccination could prevent 200,000 cases of cervical cancer and 100,000 deaths in some of the highest-burden countries. INTERPRETATION: Large between-country disparities exist for HPV vaccination, with countries with the most to gain yet to introduce national HPV vaccination. Support from the GAVI Alliance could help to reduce such disparities, but a substantial burden will remain even after presently projected vaccine introductions. FUNDING: WHO.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations261
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207