Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Bulletin of the World Health Organization logoLink to Bulletin of the World Health Organization
. 1979;57(4):625–629.

Costs and benefits of measles and mumps immunization in Austria*

G Wiedermann, F Ambrosch
PMCID: PMC2395836  PMID: 118811

Abstract

The usefulness of an immunization programme can be evaluated by comparing either risks and benefits or costs and benefits. By means of special formulae, the benefit—cost ratio and the benefit—cost difference can be calculated for monovalent and bivalent vaccines. An analysis of combined measles—mumps immunization in Austria showed that this measure is highly profitable economically. Since employed mothers are allowed one week's vacation each year to nurse a sick child, this affects the calculations. Including the cost of the ”nursing vacation” among the benefits that would be realized following an immunization programme, the estimated benefit—cost ratio is 4.48; if the cost of the ”nursing vacation” is omitted the ratio is 2.65. The estimated annual benefit—cost differences are AS 1681.90 and AS 672.85, respectively, per child. Twelve years after the beginning of a programme to immunize 100 000 1-year-old children per year (corresponding roughly to the birth rate in Austria) an amount of AS 528 million would be saved if the ”nursing vacation” is included in the calculations and an amount of AS 63 million if it is not.

Full text

PDF
625

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ambrosch F., Wiedermann G., Harasek G. Kosten und Nutzen der Masern-Impfung. Fortschr Med. 1978 Feb 23;96(8):409–414. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ambrosch F., Wiedermann G. Mathematische Methoden zur Beurteilung des Nutzens von Schutzimpfungen. Immun Infekt. 1975 Feb;3(1):24–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cherry J. D., Feigin R. D., Lobes L. A., Jr, Hinthorn D. R., Shackelford P. G., Shirley R. H., Lins R. D., Choi S. C. Urban measles in the vaccine era: a clinical, epidemiologic, and serologic study. J Pediatr. 1972 Aug;81(2):217–230. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(72)80287-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Grab B., Cvjetanovic B. Simple method for rough determination of the cost-benefit balance point of immunization programmes. Bull World Health Organ. 1971;45(4):536–541. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hilleman M. R., Buynak E. B., Weibel R. E., Stokes J., Jr Live, attenuated mumps-virus vaccine. N Engl J Med. 1968 Feb 1;278(5):227–232. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196802012780501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hilleman M. R., Weibel R. E., Buynak E. B., Stokes J., Jr, Whitman J. E., Jr Live attenuated mumps-virus vaccine. IV. Protective efficacy as measured in a field evaluation. N Engl J Med. 1967 Feb 2;276(5):252–258. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196702022760502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Wiedermann G., Ambrosch F. Epidemiologische Untersuchungen zur Masernimpfung. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1976 Sep 17;88(17):545–554. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Wiedermann G., Ambrosch F. Kosten-Nutzen-Berechnungen bei Masern- und Mumpsimpfungen. Wien Med Wochenschr. 1978 Feb 15;128(3):73–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Wiedermann G., Ambrosch F. Probleme von Impfungen. Wien Med Wochenschr. 1974 Mar 16;124(11):161–165. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Wilkins J., Williams F. F., Wehrle P. F. Infants' responses to live, attenuated, B level, Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine. Am J Dis Child. 1972 Jul;124(1):66–67. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1972.02110130068010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Bulletin of the World Health Organization are provided here courtesy of World Health Organization

RESOURCES