RESUMEN
The COVID-19 booster immunization policy is cost-effective, but evidence on additional booster doses and appropriate strategies is scarce. This research compared the cost-effectiveness of annual, twice-a-year, and biennial booster dose policies. We performed stochastic modeling using compartmental susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered models and a system dynamic model. We evaluated four policy scenarios: (1) hypothetical no-booster immunization policy; (2) twice-a-year vaccination policy; (3) annual vaccination policy; and (4) biennial vaccination policy. In addition, we conducted a one-way sensitivity analysis by adjusting R0 from 1.8 to 3.0 in all scenarios (epidemic stage) and by decreasing the vaccination cost by 50% at the end of the first year to reflect the current policy direction to enhance domestic vaccine production. Compared to non-booster policies, all three booster strategies reduced the number of cases, hospital admissions, and severe infections remarkably. Without a booster, total cases would reach 16,220,615 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6,726,550-29,661,112) by day 1,460, whereas, with a twice-a-year booster, the total cases would reach 597,901 (95% CI 526,230-694,458) in the same period. Even though the no booster scenario exhibited the lowest cost by approximately the first 500 days, by day 1,460 the biennial booster scenario demonstrated the lowest cost at 72.0 billion baht (95% CI 68.6-79.4 billion). The most cost-saving policy was the biennial booster scenario. The annual booster scenario also stood as a cost-effective option for most outcomes. In the epidemic stage and in an assumption where the vaccination costs dropped, all booster policies became more cost-effective or cost-saving compared with the main assumption. This study underscores the significance of the COVID-19 vaccine booster policy. Implementing policies should take into consideration cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and public communication.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Inmunización Secundaria , Humanos , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/economía , COVID-19/epidemiología , Inmunización Secundaria/economía , Tailandia/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/economía , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación/economía , Política de Salud/economía , Programas de Inmunización/economía , Análisis de Costo-EfectividadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It is believed that the COVID-19 pandemic might disrupt routine healthcare services. A vulnerable group such as cross-border migrants is of critical concern if the pandemic affects their service utilisation. In this study, we aim to explore the impact of COVID-19 and other related factors on non-COVID-19 service amongst cross-border migrants in Thailand. METHODS: We conducted an ecological time-series cross-sectional analysis using secondary data from 2019 to 2022, focusing on insured and non-insured migrants in a unit of a provincial monthly quarter. We obtained data on registered migrants from the Ministry of Labour and inpatient visits from the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH). Our analysis involved descriptive statistics and a random-effects negative binomial regression, considering variables such as COVID-19 cases, number of hospital beds, registered regions, and COVID-19 waves. We assessed inpatient utilisation number and rate as our primary outcomes. RESULTS: The admission numbers for insured and non-insured migrants in all regions increased 1.3-2.1 times after 2019 despite a decrease in the numbers of registered migrants. The utilisation of services for selected communicable and non-communicable diseases and obstetric conditions remained consistent throughout 2019-2022. The admission numbers and rates were not associated with an increase in COVID-19 incidence cases but significantly enlarged as time passed by compared to the pre-COVID-19 period (44.5-77.0% for insured migrants and 15.0-26.4% for non-insured migrants). Greater Bangkok saw the lowest admission rate amongst insured migrants, reflected by the incidence rate ratio of 5.7-27.5 relative to other regions. CONCLUSION: The admission numbers and rates for non-COVID-19 healthcare services remained stable regardless of COVID-19 incidence. The later pandemic waves (Delta and Omicron variants) were related to an increase in admission numbers and rates, possibly due to disruptions in outpatient care, leading to more severe cases seeking hospitalisation. Lower admission rates in Greater Bangkok may be linked to the fragmentation of the primary care network in major cities and the disintegration of service utilisation data between private facilities and the MOPH. Future research should explore migrant healthcare-seeking behaviour at an individual level, using both quantitative and qualitative methods for deeper insights.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Migrantes , Femenino , Embarazo , Humanos , Instalaciones Públicas , Tailandia/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Pandemias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Atención a la SaludRESUMEN
The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) was a pandemic that caused high morbidity and mortality worldwide. The COVID-19 vaccine was expected to be a game-changer for the pandemic. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of COVID-19 cases and vaccination in Thailand during 2021. An association between vaccination and case rates was estimated with potential confounders at ecological levels (color zones, curfews set by provincial authorities, tourism, and migrant movements) considering time lags at two, four, six, and eight weeks after vaccination. A spatial panel model for bivariate data was used to explore the relationship between case rates and each variable and included only a two-week lag after vaccination for each variable in the multivariate analyses. In 2021, Thailand had 1,965,023 cumulative cases and 45,788,315 total administered first vaccination doses (63.60%). High cases and vaccination rates were found among 31-45-year-olds. Vaccination rates had a slightly positive association with case rates due to the allocation of hot-spot pandemic areas in the early period. The proportion of migrants and color zones measured had positive associations with case rates at the provincial level. The proportion of tourists had a negative association. Vaccinations should be provided to migrants, and collaboration between tourism and public health should prepare for the new era of tourism.
RESUMEN
On 22 March 2019 the Thai Department of Disease Control (DDC) was notified that 16 workers, including Thai and Myanmar migrant workers, from two factories located in Nakhon Phathom Province, had presented with a fever with rash during the previous 2 weeks. Active case finding was conducted among workers in both factories using face-to-face interviews. Suspected cases were defined as a worker who developed fever with rash with one of the following symptoms: cough, coryza or conjunctivitis. Testing for measles IgM antibodies and viral identification through throat swabs by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were performed to confirm diagnosis. Vaccination history among cases was reviewed. Nationality and age-specific attack rates (AR) were calculated. An environmental study and a social network analysis were conducted to better understand the transmission process. A total 56 cases (AR = 0.97%) were identified. Of 21 serum measles IgM collected, 8 (38.0%) were positive. Of 8 throat swabs collected, 5 (62.5%) were positive for measles genotype D8. The disease attack rate in migrant employees was twice as large as the rate in Thai counterparts (AR = 0.7 and 1.4%). The first case was identified as a Myanmar worker who arrived in Thailand two weeks prior to his illness. The Myanmar workers' accommodation was more crowded than that for Thai workers. The hot spots of transmission were found at a drinking water tank which had shared glasses. Among the cases, 62.5% could not recall their vaccination history, and 25% had never had an injection containing a measles vaccination. The majority of migrant cases had never completed a two-dose measles vaccination. To halt the outbreak, measles vaccines were administered to the employees, particularly those working in the same sections with the cases and shared glasses were removed. For future policy action, a vaccination program should be incorporated into the work permit issuance process.