MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an experimental before and after study performed between October 2014 and March 2015. Five hundred and eighty students were randomly assigned into intervention and control groups. All were required to complete both pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaires. Those in the intervention group were given an information leaflet to read before answering the post-intervention questionnaire.
RESULTS: Almost half (48.3%) of the students had poor knowledge, with a score less than 5, and only 51 (8.8%) exhibited good knowledge, with a score of 11 and above. After educational intervention, the number of students with poor knowledge was reduced to 177 (29.3%) and the number of students who exhibited good knowledge increased to 148 (25.5%). Students from the intervention group demonstrated significant higher total scores in knowledge regarding 'HPV infection and cervical cancer' (p=0.000) and 'HPV vaccination and cervical cancer prevention' (p=0.000) during post-intervention as compared to the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge on HPV infection and vaccination is low among pre-university students. Educational intervention in the form of information leaflets appears effective in creating awareness and improving knowledge.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to provide a critical summary of EEs of PCVs and identify key drivers of EE findings in LMICs.
METHODS: We searched Scopus, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central from their inception to 30 September 2015 and limited the search to LMICs. The search was undertaken using the search strings 'pneumococc* AND conjugat* AND (vaccin* OR immun*)' AND 'economic OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility' in the abstract, title or keyword fields. To be included, each study had to be a full EE of a PCV and conducted for an LMIC. Studies were extracted and reviewed by two authors. The review involved standard extraction of the study overview or the characteristics of the study, key drivers or parameters of the EE, assumptions behind the analyses and major areas of uncertainty.
RESULTS: Out of 134 records identified, 22 articles were included. Seven studies used a Markov model for analysis, while 15 studies used a decision-tree analytic model. Eighteen studies performed a cost-utility analysis (CUA), with disability-adjusted life-years, quality-adjusted life-years or life-years gained as a measure of health outcome, while four studies focused only on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Both CEA and CUA findings were provided by eight studies. Herd effects and serotype replacement were considered in 10 and 13 studies, respectively. The current evidence shows that both the 10-valent and 13-valent PCVs are probably cost effective in comparison with the 7-valent PCV or no vaccination. The most influential parameters were vaccine efficacy and coverage (in 16 of 22 studies), vaccine price (in 13 of 22 studies), disease incidence (in 11 of 22 studies), mortality from IPD and pneumonia (in 8 of 22 studies) and herd effects (in 4 of 22 studies). The findings were found to be supportive of the products owned by the manufacturers.
CONCLUSION: Our review demonstrated that an infant PCV programme was a cost-effective intervention in most LMICs (in 20 of 22 studies included). The results were sensitive to vaccine efficacy, price, burden of disease and sponsorship. Decision makers should consider EE findings and affordability before adoption of PCVs.