METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, NHS EED, EconLit, CEA Registry, SciELO, LILACS, CABI-Global Health Database, Popline, World Bank - e-Library, and WHOLIS. Full economic evaluations studies, published from inception to November 2015, evaluating Rotavirus vaccines preventing Rotavirus infections were included. The methods, assumptions, results and conclusions of the included studies were extracted and appraised using WHO guide for standardization of EE of immunization programs.
RESULTS: 104 relevant studies were included. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries. Cost-utility analysis was mostly reported in many studies using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per DALY averted or QALY gained. Incremental cost per QALY gained was used in many studies from high-income countries. Mass routine vaccination against rotavirus provided the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to highly cost-effective in comparison to no vaccination among low-income countries. Among middle-income countries, vaccination offered the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to cost-effective. Due to low- or no subsidized price of rotavirus vaccines from external funders, being not cost-effective was reported in some high-income settings.
CONCLUSION: Mass vaccination against rotavirus was generally found to be cost-effective, particularly in low- and middle-income settings according to the external subsidization of vaccine price. On the other hand, it may not be a cost-effective intervention at market price in some high-income settings. This systematic review provides supporting information to health policy-makers and health professionals when considering rotavirus vaccination as a national program.
METHODS: The current study estimated the annual spending and lifetime spending of smokers in the target Asia-Pacific countries (Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia) on purchasing cigarettes, as well as predicted the revenue that could be generated if smokers spent the money on investment instead of buying cigarettes. Smokers' spending on cigarettes and the potential revenue generated from investment were estimated based on the selling prices of cigarettes, Standards & Poor's 500 Index, and life expectancies of smokers. Data were extracted from reports released by the World Health Organization or government authorities.
RESULTS: The annual expenses (in US$) on purchasing one pack of cigarettes, in decreasing order, were: Australia ($5628.30), Singapore ($3777.75), Hong Kong ($2799.55), Malaysia ($1529.35), South Korea ($1467.30), and Thailand ($657.00). The lifetime spending on purchasing one pack of cigarettes each day were: Australia ($308993.67), Singapore ($207398.48), Hong Kong ($151735.61 for male and $166853.18 for female), South Korea ($80261.31), Malaysia ($72338.26), and Thailand ($31207.50).
CONCLUSIONS: The cost burden of smoking is high from a smoker's perspective. Smokers should recognize the high economic burden and quit smoking to enjoy better health and wealth.
METHODS: Score sheet based on WHO FCTC Article 5.3 Guidelines sent to correspondents in seven Southeast Asian countries, using a scoring system designed with the help of tobacco control experts and validated through focused group discussions.
RESULTS: The seven countries ranked from the lowest level of interference to the highest are Brunei, Thailand, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. Countries that face high levels of unnecessary interaction with the tobacco industry also face high levels of tobacco industry influence in policy development. Most governments do not allow any tobacco industry representatives on their delegation to sessions of the Conference of the Parties or its subsidiary bodies nor accept their sponsorship for delegates, but most governments still accept or endorse offers of assistance from the tobacco industry in implementing tobacco control policies. Most governments also receive tobacco industry contributions (monetary or in kind) or endorse industry corporate social responsibility activities. Governments do not have a procedure for disclosing interactions with the tobacco industry, but Lao PDR, Philippines and Thailand have instituted measures to prevent or reduce industry interference.
CONCLUSIONS: This Tobacco Industry Interference Index, based on the WHO FCTC Article 5.3 Guidelines, is a useful advocacy tool for identifying both progress and gaps in national efforts at implementing WHO FCTC Article 5.3.