Background Safe and effective vaccination is considered to be the most critical strategy to fight coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), leading to individual and herd immunity protection. We aimed to systematically review the economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination globally. Methods We performed a systematic search to identify relevant studies in two major databases (MEDLINE/PubMed and EBSCO) published until September 8, 2022. After deduplication, two researchers independently screened the study titles and abstracts according to pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. We assessed their quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and summarized and narratively presented the results. Results We identified 25 studies that assessed the economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination worldwide by considering several input parameters, including vaccine cost, vaccine efficacy, utility value, and the size of the targeted population. All studies suggested that COVID-19 vaccination was a cost-effective or cost-saving intervention for mitigating coronavirus transmission and its effect in many countries within certain conditions. Most studies reported vaccine efficacy values ranging from 65% to 75%. Conclusions Given the favorable cost-effectiveness profile of COVID-19 vaccines and disparities in affordability across countries, considering prioritization has become paramount. This review provides comprehensive insights into the economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination that will be useful to policymakers, particularly in highlighting preventive measures and preparedness plans for the next possible pandemic.

Background WHO reported that 5.5 million people died in the world because of COVID-19. One of the efforts to mitigate the pandemic is administrating the vaccines globally. Objective The objective of this study was to review cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccination in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods We searched PubMed and EBSCO for the eligible studies with inclusion criteria using cost-effectiveness analysis, free full text, low-middle-income countries, and the publication date since the last year. Four reviewers conducted the review independently. Results The review identified four articles meeting the eligibility criteria. The settings were LMICs. Different perspectives and economic modelling used by the countries confirmed a similar result. They all explained that vaccination could prevent the infection spread and mortality caused by COVID-19 and showed high cost-effectiveness values. Conclusion Administering COVID-19 vaccines was cost-effective and even cost-saving. The studies found that vaccination was more cost-effective in reducing the spread of the COVID-19 virus and the mortality it caused than no vaccination.

IntroductionMedication non-adherence is an important public health issue, associated with poor clinical and economic outcomes. Globally, self-reported instruments are the most widely used method to assess medication adherence. However, the majority of these were developed in high-income countries (HICs) with a well-established health care system. Their applicability in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains unclear. The objective of this study is to systematically review the applicability of content and use of self-reported adherence instruments in LMICs.MethodA scoping review informed by a literature search in Pubmed, EBSCO, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify studies assessing medication adherence using self-reported instruments for patients with five common chronic diseases [hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, asthma, or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)] in LMICs up to January 2022 with no constraints on publication year. Two reviewers performed the study selection process, data extraction and outcomes assessment independently. Outcomes focused on LMIC applicability of the self-reported adherence instruments assessed by (i) containing LMIC relevant adherence content; (ii) methodological quality and (iii) fees for use.FindingsWe identified 181 studies that used self-reported instruments for assessing medication adherence in LMICs. A total of 32 distinct types of self-reported instruments to assess medication adherence were identified. Of these, 14 self-reported instruments were developed in LMICs, while the remaining ones were adapted from self-reported instruments originally developed in HICs. All self-reported adherence instruments in studies included presented diverse potential challenges regarding their applicability in LMICs, included an underrepresentation of LMIC relevant non-adherence reasons, such as financial issues, use of traditional medicines, religious beliefs, lack of communication with healthcare provider, running out of medicine, and access to care. Almost half of included studies showed that the existing self-reported adherence instruments lack sufficient evidence regarding cross cultural validation and internal consistency. In 70% of the studies, fees applied for using the self-reported instruments in LMICs.ConclusionThere seems insufficient emphasis on applicability and methodological rigor of self-reported medication adherence instruments used in LMICs. This presents an opportunity for developing a self-reported adherence instrument that is suitable to health systems and resources in LMICs.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022302215.

IntroductionLow awareness of the necessity of taking medication is common among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) due to their lack of understanding of the disease. Therefore, it is essential to determine the underlying risks influencing low awareness to design effective intervention strategies. This study aims to evaluate the association of sociodemographic and behavioural factors with low awareness to take medication among patients with DM in Indonesia.MethodRetrospective data were obtained from the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS-5), a national cross-sectional population-based survey among respondents with DM aged ≥15 years. DM status was confirmed by HbA1c testing, while sociodemographic and other health-related information was obtained from self-reported data. Gender, age, educational level, marital status, economic status, comorbidity, religiosity, residence and health insurance status were considered sociodemographic, whereas blood glucose monitoring status, sleeping problems, depression status, having a general medical check-up, satisfaction with healthcare needs and happiness status were considered behavioural risk factors. Awareness of DM medication was determined by self-reported responses to the question asked by the surveyor. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between sociodemographic and behavioural factors and low awareness of DM medication. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.ResultMost of the 706 respondents were female (58.8%) and aged 55–65 years (28.8%). Most of them showed low awareness of diabetes medication (87.7%). Irregular blood glucose monitoring (OR: 23.61, 95% CI 11.46–48.65; p < 0.001), without any comorbidity (OR: 2.03, 95% CI 1.05–3.90; p = 0.034), never had any general medical check-up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI 1.12–5.36; p = 0.016), 26–35 years of age (OR: 4.96, 95% CI 1.06–23.19; p = 0.042), 36–45 years of age (OR: 5.04, 95% CI 1.17–21.69; p = 0.030) and having no health insurance coverage (OR: 2.08, 95% CI 1.12–3.87; p = 0.021) were significantly associated with low awareness of diabetes medication.ConclusionHealthcare professionals should regularly evaluate blood glucose level, perform routine medical check-ups, prioritise patient satisfaction by providing appropriate care, involve patients in decision-making by determining their needs and then tailor an intervention to meet the need for, and improve their awareness of, DM medication.

Introduction: Low awareness about hypertension treatment is recognized as a significant cause of treatment failure. Therefore, identifying its underlying factors is essential for developing effective intervention strategies. This study aims to identify the modifiable and non-modifiable factors associated with low awareness about hypertension treatment.Method: This national, cross-sectional, population-based survey used publicly available data from the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS-5) for 2014 among respondents with hypertension aged ≥15 years. Depression and insomnia, as modifiable factors, were assessed using the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) and the Patient-Recorded Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaire, respectively. Non-modifiable factors, such as sociodemographic information, were obtained from self-reported data. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between these factors and low awareness about hypertension treatment. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. Result:The study recruited 7,920 respondents, the majority of whom were female (53.8%) and aged <60 years (71.1%). The prevalence of low awareness of hypertension treatment was 87.