An overview of the perspectives used in health economic evaluations.

The term 'perspective' in the context of economic evaluations and costing studies in healthcare refers to the viewpoint that an analyst has adopted to define the types of costs and outcomes to consider in their studies. However, there are currently notable variations in terms of methodological recommendations, definitions, and applications of different perspectives, depending on the objective or intended user of the study. This can make it a complex area for stakeholders when interpreting these studies. Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive overview regarding the different types of perspectives employed in such analyses, along with the corresponding implications of their use. This is particularly important, in the context of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where practical guidelines may be less well-established and infrastructure for conducting economic evaluations may be more limited. This article addresses this gap by summarising the main types of perspectives commonly found in the literature to a broad audience (namely the patient, payer, health care providers, healthcare sector, health system, and societal perspectives), providing their most established definitions and outlining the corresponding implications of their uses in health economic studies, with examples particularly from LMIC settings. We then discuss important considerations when selecting the perspective and present key arguments to consider when deciding whether the societal perspective should be used. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what perspective should be used and the perspective chosen will be influenced by the context, policymakers'/stakeholders' viewpoints, resource/data availability, and intended use of the analysis. Moving forward, considering the ongoing issues regarding the variation in terminology and practice in this area, we urge that more standardised definitions of the different perspectives and the boundaries between them are further developed to support future studies and guidelines, as well as to improve the interpretation and comparison of health economic evidence.

Economic Analysis of Border Control Policies during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Modelling Study to Inform Cross-Border Travel Policy between Singapore and Thailand.

With countries progressing towards high COVID-19 vaccination rates, strategies for border reopening are required. This study focuses on Thailand and Singapore, two countries that share significant tourism visitation, to illustrate a framework for optimizing COVID-19 testing and quarantine policies for bilateral travel with a focus on economic recovery. The timeframe is the month of October 2021, when Thailand and Singapore were preparing to reopen borders for bilateral travel. This study was conducted to provide evidence for the border reopening policy decisions. Incremental net benefit (INB) compared to the pre-opening period was quantified through a willingness-to-travel model, a micro-simulation COVID-19 transmission model and an economic model accounting for medical and non-medical costs/benefits. Multiple testing and quarantine policies were examined, and Pareto optimal (PO) policies and the most influential components were identified. The highest possible INB for Thailand is US $125.94 million, under a PO policy with no quarantine but with antigen rapid tests (ARTs) pre-departure and upon arrival to enter both countries. The highest possible INB for Singapore is US $29.78 million, under another PO policy with no quarantine on both sides, no testing to enter Thailand, and ARTs pre-departure and upon arrival to enter Singapore. Tourism receipts and costs/profits of testing and quarantine have greater economic impacts than that from COVID-19 transmission. Provided healthcare systems have sufficient capacity, great economic benefits can be gained for both countries by relaxing border control measures.

Factors associated with the opposition to COVID-19 vaccination certificates: A multi-country observational study from Asia.

BACKGROUND: There are ongoing calls to harmonise and increase the use of COVID-19 vaccination certificates (CVCs) in Asia. Identifying groups in Asian societies who oppose CVCs and understanding their reasons can help formulate an effective CVCs policy in the region. However, no formal studies have explored this issue in Asia. METHOD: The COVID-19 Vaccination Policy Research and Decision-Support Initiative in Asia (CORESIA) was established to address policy questions related to CVCs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to October 2021 in nine Asian countries. Multivariable logistical regression analyses were performed to identify potential opposers of CVCs. RESULTS: Six groups were identified as potential opposers of CVCs: (i) unvaccinated (Odd Ratio (OR): 2.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.65-2.46); vaccine hesitant and those without access to COVID-19 vaccines; (ii) those not wanting existing NPIs to continue (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.51-3.53); (iii) those with low level of trust in governments (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-2.52); (iv) those without travel plans (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.31-1.90); (v) those expecting no financial gains from CVCs (OR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.98-2.78); and (vi) those disagreeing to use CVCs for employment, education, events, hospitality, and domestic travel. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing recurring public health bottlenecks such as vaccine hesitancy and equitable access, adherence to policies, public trust, and changing the narrative from 'societal-benefit' to 'personal-benefit' may be necessary and may help increase wider adoption of CVCs in Asia.

Operationalising Regional Cooperation for Infectious Disease Control: A Scoping Review of Regional Disease Control Bodies and Networks.

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrates the value of regional cooperation in infectious disease prevention and control. We explored the literature on regional infectious disease control bodies, to identify lessons, barriers and enablers to inform operationalisation of a regional infectious disease control body or network in southeast Asia. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to examine existing literature on regional infectious disease control bodies and networks, and to identify lessons that can be learned that will be useful for operationalisation of a regional infectious disease control body such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Center for Public Health Emergency and Emerging Diseases. RESULTS: Of the 57 articles included, 53 (93%) were in English, with two (3%) in Spanish and one (2%) each in Dutch and French. Most were commentaries or review articles describing programme initiatives. Sixteen (28%) publications focused on organisations in the Asian continent, with 14 (25%) focused on Africa, and 14 (25%) primarily focused on the European region. Key lessons focused on organisational factors, diagnosis and detection, human resources, communication, accreditation, funding, and sustainability. Enablers and constraints were consistent across regions/ organisations. A clear understanding of the regional context, budgets, cultural or language issues, staffing capacity and governmental priorities, is pivotal. An initial workshop inclusive of the various bodies involved in the design, implementation, monitoring or evaluation of programmes is essential. Clear governance structure, with individual responsibilities clear from the beginning, will reduce friction. Secure, long-term funding is also a key aspect of the success of any programme. CONCLUSION: Operationalisation of regional infectious disease bodies and networks is complicated, but with extensive groundwork, and focus on organisational factors, diagnosis and detection, human resources, communication, accreditation, funding, and sustainability, it is achievable. Ways to promote success are to include as many stakeholders as possible from the beginning, to ensure that context-specific factors are considered, and to encourage employees through capacity building and mentoring, to ensure they feel valued and reduce staff turnover.

'Science is only half of it': Expert perspectives on operationalising infectious disease control cooperation in the ASEAN region.

Governmental awareness of the potential spread of infectious disease, exemplified by the current Covid-19 pandemic, ideally results in collective action, as countries coordinate a response that benefits all, contributing expertise, resources, knowledge and experience to achieve a common public good. However, operationalising regional cooperation is difficult, with barriers including lack of political will, regional heterogeneity, and existing geopolitical issues. We interviewed 23 people with regional expertise focusing on Asia, Africa, the Americas and Europe. All interviewees held senior positions in regional bodies or networks or had significant experience working with them. Operationalisation of a regional infectious disease body is complex but areas interviewees highlighted-organisational factors (e.g. integration and harmonisation; cross-border issues; funding, financing and sustainability; capacity-building; data sharing); governance and diplomacy (e.g. building collaborations and partnerships; communication; role of communities; diplomacy; leadership; ownership; sovereignty; political commitment); and stakeholders and multilateral agreements-will help promote successful operationalisation. The international infectious disease community has learned valuable lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic, not least the necessity of pooling human, financial and technological resources, constructing positive working relationships with neighbours, and sharing data. Without this kind of regional cooperation, infectious diseases will continue to threaten our future, and the next pandemic may have even more far-reaching effects.