DESIGN: We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction).
SETTING: We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings-namely, workplace and healthcare facilities.
RESULTS: Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04-3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58-87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15-50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29-35%) versus off-site self-testing (7-27%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 225 adults recruited from 9 East and Southeast Asian countries or regions (Indonesia, Japan, Korea, mainland China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand). Trained interviewers conducted semistructured interviews with 25 participants from the general population of each country/region. Qualitative data were analyzed using a content analysis approach. The selection of items was determined based on interview surveys and team member discussions. The description of items was considered based on a detailed qualitative analysis of the interview survey.
RESULTS: A new region-specific PBM-the Asia PBM 7 dimensions instrument-was designed. It reflects East and Southeast Asian values and comprises 7 items: pain, mental health, energy, mobility, work/school, interpersonal interactions, and burden to others.
CONCLUSIONS: The new region-specific instrument is one of the first PBMs developed in the context of non-Western countries. The Asia PBM 7 dimensions contains 7 items that address the core concepts of health-related quality of life that are deemed important based on East and Southeast Asian health concepts.