Methods: This study adopted the cross-sectional, contingent valuation study that involved 400 respondents in Penang, Malaysia. The double-bounded dichotomous choice via bidding game approach was employed to elicit the WTP value for two hypothetical 3-doses dengue vaccines (Vaccines A and B with 5- and 10-years' protection, respectively against dengue). A univariate logistic regression model was employed to assess the key determinants of vaccine acceptance, while the mean WTP value and its associated factors were measured by using the parametric two-part model (TPM).

METHODS: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness and impact of dengue vaccination in Malaysia from both provider and societal perspectives using a dynamic transmission mathematical model. The model incorporated sensitivity analyses, Malaysia-specific data, evidence from recent phase III studies and pooled efficacy and long-term safety data to refine the estimates from previous published studies. Unit costs were valued in $US, year 2013 values.

RESULTS: Six vaccination programmes employing a three-dose schedule were identified as the most likely programmes to be implemented. In all programmes, vaccination produced positive benefits expressed as reductions in dengue cases, dengue-related deaths, life-years lost, disability-adjusted life-years and dengue treatment costs. Instead of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), we evaluated the cost effectiveness of the programmes by calculating the threshold prices for a highly cost-effective strategy [ICER <1 × gross domestic product (GDP) per capita] and a cost-effective strategy (ICER between 1 and 3 × GDP per capita). We found that vaccination may be cost effective up to a price of $US32.39 for programme 6 (highly cost effective up to $US14.15) and up to a price of $US100.59 for programme 1 (highly cost effective up to $US47.96) from the provider perspective. The cost-effectiveness analysis is sensitive to under-reporting, vaccine protection duration and model time horizon.

METHODS: We searched three electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and CINAHL Plus) utilizing a systematic scoping review method. Two reviewers independently screened, applied inclusion criteria, reviewed, and synthesized findings. A mixed-method narrative approach combining the inductive thematic analysis and content analysis methodologies was used to synthesize and summarize the findings.

RESULTS: The review included 22 studies, leading to the conceptualization of 5 overarching themes and 17 sub-themes. Among these, the most frequently cited theme was treatment benefits, followed by treatment-related process, treatment-related risk, quality of life, and cost of treatment. Women with breast cancer highly value treatments that offer good effectiveness, prolong survival, prevent recurrence, and maintain quality of life. Patient concerns include treatment-related side effects, safety, the risk of secondary cancer, and direct or indirect out-of-pocket costs. Additionally, patients also consider treatment duration, mode of administration, physician recommendation, and treatment availability and accessibility when deciding on their preferred treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Semi-structured online interviews comprised of six focus group discussions and five individual interviews were performed with 26 breast cancer patients. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the reflexive thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS: Four main themes were derived: (1) positive treatment outcomes; (2) the negative impact of treatment-related side effects on quality of life; (3) treatment accessibility, availability, and timeliness; (4) cost of treatment. Patients revealed a strong preference towards treatments that yield longer survival, achieve remission, and prevent cancer recurrence. Additionally, patients favored treatments with minimal side effects that had minimal impact on their quality of life. There was a notable preference for treatments that were easily accessible and available in a timely manner. However, patients faced challenging decisions in balancing the costs of treatments with their benefits, leading to a consistent preference for treatments supported by government funding or medical insurance to alleviate financial burdens.