A new review in Vaccine synthesizes the economic evidence linked to randomized trials of recipient-focused interventions to increase vaccine uptake in and upper-middle and high-income settings. Drawing from systematic searches, researchers screened 2,803 reports and included 37 studies with economic data: 16 full economic evaluations, 10 cost analyses, and 10 reporting the value of financial incentives. Most evidence was for influenza (n=15) and HPV (n=11) vaccines, with reminder/recall strategies the most frequently assessed intervention type.
The review found that cost data and reporting practices are inconsistent, limiting comparability and decision usefulness. The authors call for routine, standardized collection and transparent reporting of costs alongside effectiveness in future RCTs so policymakers can judge not only “what works” but also “what’s worth it.” For immunization programs weighing investments in reminders, incentives, or other demand-side strategies, this review maps where economic evidence exists, and where it’s still missing.
How can the findings be used?
Economic evidence is still lacking on recipient-focused strategies that improve accessibility, affordability and the use of multiple approaches. This study also highlights the need for future research to report cost data for different groups and settings, which will help support fair decision-making across different communities.
Thumbnail image credit: Shutterstock / teera.noisakran
Any organization or individual working in the field of immunization economics can submit findings, opportunities, calls to action, or other relevant work below to be shared with our community.