RESUMEN
Existing evidence on the cost of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs has focused on pilot and demonstration projects or initial introductions, which resulted in a perceived high cost. We aimed to study the ongoing cost and operational context of an established HPV vaccination program in Sri Lanka. We conducted a retrospective operational research and microcosting study focusing on 2019. We collected data from 30 divisional health units, 10 districts, and the central level. We then evaluated financial and economic costs, reported by level of the health system, program activity, cost types, and per dose delivered. In 2019, Sri Lanka delivered a total of 314,815 doses of HPV vaccine. In our study sample, 95 % of the HPV vaccination sessions took place at schools, with peaks of delivery in February-March and September-October. The weighted mean financial cost per dose delivered was $0.27 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: $0.15-$0.39) and the economic cost per dose was $3.88 (95 % CI: $2.67-$5.10), excluding the cost of vaccines and supplies. Most of the cost was borne by the divisional health unit level. Service delivery and social mobilization were major contributors to overall costs at the divisional health unit level, and vaccine collection or distribution and storage were the most costly activities at the district and central levels. Cost drivers included the opportunity cost of health worker and non-health worker time at the divisional health unit level and capital costs for vehicles and equipment, along with fuel, maintenance, and energy, at the district and central levels. This study provides new evidence on the cost and cost drivers of a routinized HPV vaccination program. Results can be used for financial planning purposes in Sri Lanka and may inform other countries as they consider use of HPV vaccines.
RESUMEN
We conducted an independent evaluation on the effectiveness of an organisational-level monetary incentive to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to improve employees' health and wellbeing. This was A mixed-methods cluster randomised trial with four arms: high monetary incentive, low monetary incentive, and two no monetary incentive controls (with or without baseline measurements to examine 'reactivity' The consequence of particpant awareness of being studied, and potential impact on participant behavior effects). SMEs with 10-250 staff based in West Midlands, England were eligible. We randomly selected up to 15 employees at baseline and 11 months post-intervention. We elicited employee perceptions of employers' actions to improve health and wellbeing; and employees' self-reported health behaviours and wellbeing. We also interviewed employers and obtained qualitative data. One hundred and fifty-two SMEs were recruited. Baseline assessments were conducted in 85 SMEs in three arms, and endline assessments in 100 SMEs across all four arms. The percentage of employees perceiving "positive action" by their employer increased after intervention (5 percentage points, pp [95% Credible Interval -3, 21] and 3pp [-9, 17], in models for high and low incentive groups). Across six secondary questions about specific issues the results were strongly and consistently positive, especially for the high incentive. This was consistent with qualitative data and quantitative employer interviews. However, there was no evidence of any impact on employee health behaviour or wellbeing outcomes, nor evidence of 'reactivity'. An organisational intervention (a monetary incentive) changed employee perceptions of employer behaviour but did not translate into changes in employees' self-reports of their own health behaviours or wellbeing. Trial registration: AEARCTR-0003420, registration date: 17.10.2018, retrospectively registered (delays in contracts and identfying a suitable trial registry). The authors confirm that there are no ongoing and related trials for this intervention.
