Economic evaluation of rotavirus vaccination in children of Bhutan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diarrhoea remains one of the top ten causes of under-five child morbidity in Bhutan, and rotavirus is a significant cause of child diarrhoeal hospitalisations. This study sought to determine the health outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and budget and human resource implications of introducing rotavirus vaccines in the routine immunisation program to inform Bhutan's decision-making process. METHODS: We used UNIVAC model (version 1.3.41) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a rotavirus vaccination programme compared with no vaccination from a government perspective. We also projected the impact of rotavirus vaccination on human resources and budget. Acost-effectiveness threshold was determined to be 0.5 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (equivalent to the United States dollar ($) 1,537) per Disability-Adjusted Life-Year (DALY) averted.One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and threshold analyses were performed to capture parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: In Bhutan, a rotavirus vaccination programme over 10 years (2020 to 2029) can avert between 104 and 115 DALYs, at an incremental cost ranging from $322,000 to $1,332,000. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) across four vaccination programmes compared to no vaccination scenario were $9,267, $11,606, $3,201, and $2,803 per DALY averted for ROTARIX, RotaTeq, ROTAVAC, and ROTASIIL, respectively. The net five-year budget impact of introducing a rotavirus vaccination programme ranged from $0.20 to $0.81 million. The rotavirus vaccination programme has a potential to reduce the workload of health care workers such as paediatricians, nurses, dieticians, and pharmacists; however, the programme would require an additional 1.93-2.88 full-time equivalent of health assistants. CONCLUSION: At the current cost-effectiveness threshold, routine rotavirus vaccination in Bhutan is unlikely to be cost-effective with any of the currently available vaccines. However, routine vaccination with ROTASIIL was under the cost-effectiveness threshold of one times the GDP per capita ($3,074). ROTASIIL and ROTAVAC would provide the best value for money in Bhutan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".