RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations of vaccination may not fully account for nonhealth patient impacts on families, communities, and society (ie, broader value elements). Omission of broader value elements may reflect a lack of established measurement methodology, lack of agreement over which value elements to include in economic evaluations, and a lack of consensus on whether the value elements included should vary by vaccination type or condition. We conducted a systematic review of value frameworks to identify broader value elements and measurement guidance that may be useful for capturing the full value of vaccination. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the gray literature to identify value frameworks for all health interventions, and we extracted information on each framework's context, value elements, and any available guidance on how these elements should be measured. We used descriptive statistics to analyze and compare the prevalence of broader value elements in vaccination value frameworks and other healthcare-related value frameworks. RESULTS: Our search identified 62 value frameworks that met inclusion criteria, 9 of which were vaccination specific. Although vaccination frameworks included several broader value elements, such as reduced transmissibility and public health benefits, the elements were represented inconsistently across the frameworks. Vaccination frameworks omitted several value elements included in nonvaccination-specific frameworks, including dosing and administration complexity and affordability. In addition, guidance for measuring broader value elements was underdeveloped. CONCLUSIONS: Future efforts should further evaluate inclusion of broader value elements in economic evaluations of vaccination and develop standards for their subsequent measurement.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: India accounts for about one-quarter of people contracting tuberculosis (TB) disease annually and nearly one-third of TB deaths globally. Many Indians do not navigate all care cascade stages to receive TB treatment and achieve recurrence-free survival. Guided by a population/exposure/comparison/outcomes (PECO) framework, we report findings of a systematic review to identify factors contributing to unfavorable outcomes across each care cascade gap for TB disease in India. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We defined care cascade gaps as comprising people with confirmed or presumptive TB who did not: start the TB diagnostic workup (Gap 1), complete the workup (Gap 2), start treatment (Gap 3), achieve treatment success (Gap 4), or achieve TB recurrence-free survival (Gap 5). Three systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to August 14, 2023 were conducted. We identified articles evaluating factors associated with unfavorable outcomes for each gap (reported as adjusted odds, relative risk, or hazard ratios) and, among people experiencing unfavorable outcomes, reasons for these outcomes (reported as proportions), with specific quality or risk of bias criteria for each gap. Findings were organized into person-, family-, and society-, or health system-related factors, using a social-ecological framework. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes across multiple cascade stages included: male sex, older age, poverty-related factors, lower symptom severity or duration, undernutrition, alcohol use, smoking, and distrust of (or dissatisfaction with) health services. People previously treated for TB were more likely to seek care and engage in the diagnostic workup (Gaps 1 and 2) but more likely to suffer pretreatment loss to follow-up (Gap 3) and unfavorable treatment outcomes (Gap 4), especially those who were lost to follow-up during their prior treatment. For individual care cascade gaps, multiple studies highlighted lack of TB knowledge and structural barriers (e.g., transportation challenges) as contributing to lack of care-seeking for TB symptoms (Gap 1, 14 studies); lack of access to diagnostics (e.g., X-ray), non-identification of eligible people for testing, and failure of providers to communicate concern for TB as contributing to non-completion of the diagnostic workup (Gap 2, 17 studies); stigma, poor recording of patient contact information by providers, and early death from diagnostic delays as contributing to pretreatment loss to follow-up (Gap 3, 15 studies); and lack of TB knowledge, stigma, depression, and medication adverse effects as contributing to unfavorable treatment outcomes (Gap 4, 86 studies). Medication nonadherence contributed to unfavorable treatment outcomes (Gap 4) and TB recurrence (Gap 5, 14 studies). Limitations include lack of meta-analyses due to the heterogeneity of findings and limited generalizability to some Indian regions, given the country's diverse population. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review illuminates common patterns of risk that shape outcomes for Indians with TB, while highlighting knowledge gaps-particularly regarding TB care for children or in the private sector-to guide future research. Findings may inform targeting of support services to people with TB who have higher risk of poor outcomes and inform multicomponent interventions to close gaps in the care cascade.