Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Occup Environ Med. 2012 Sep;54(9):1107-17. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182677d34.

The comparative value of various employer-sponsored influenza vaccination clinics.

Author information

  • 1Department of Family Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Many US firms offer influenza vaccination clinics to prevent lost productivity due to influenza. Strategies to promote and offer vaccination differ, and the economic value of the strategies is unknown.

METHODS:

Decision analytic modeling and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses estimated the one-season cost-consequences of three types of influenza clinics (trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine only, vaccine choice [trivalent inactivated influenza or intranasal {live attenuated influenza} vaccine], or vaccine choice plus incentive) in firms of 50 and 250 employees, from the employer's perspective.

RESULTS:

On-site influenza vaccination was generally cost-saving over no vaccination. For the scenario of vaccine effectiveness of 70% and intermediate transmissibility, the incremental costs per employee for a firm of 50 employees were -$6.41 (ie, cost savings) for inactivated vaccine only versus no vaccination, -$1.48 for vaccine choice versus inactivated vaccine, and $1.84 for vaccine choice plus incentive versus vaccine choice. Clinics offering a choice of vaccines were slightly less costly under many scenarios. Generally, incremental costs were lower (1) in larger firms; (2) when influenza was assumed to be more contagious; and (3) when vaccine effectiveness was assumed to be higher.

CONCLUSION:

Employer-sponsored influenza vaccination clinics are generally cost-saving.

PMID:
22929797
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk