PubMed · 10378587
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M L Bauer. 1999. Flutter flap.. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.115.6.1757
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In Indonesia responsibility for immunizations is placed on local government health centres and on the nurses who provide the immunizations at each centre. An on-the-job peer training programme for these nurses, which was designed to improve the immunization performance of poorly performing health centres in terms of coverage and practice in Maluku province, was evaluated. Experienced immunization nurses were sent to health centres where nurses were inexperienced or performing poorly; the experienced nurses spent 1-2 weeks providing on-the-job training for the less experienced ones. An evaluation of the 13 centres that participated in the programme and the 95 that did not found that the programme increased both immunization coverage and the quality of practice. Coverage of diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT), polio, and measles vaccinations rose by about 39% in all 13 participating centres when compared with non-participating centres, and by about 54% in the 11 centres that had a functioning transportation system during the year after training. These results reflect increases in the actual number of doses given and improvements in the accuracy of reports. Potential threats to the study's validity were examined and found not to be significant. The out-of-pocket cost of the training programme was about US$ 53 per trainee or about US$ 0.05 per additional vaccine reported to have been given. The marginal cost per additional fully immunized child was estimated to be US$ 0.50.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the WINGS project, an intervention to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases among urban women at high risk for sexual acquisition of HIV. METHODS: We used standard methods of cost-effectiveness analysis. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the intervention's cost and we used a simplified model of HIV transmission to estimate the number of HIV infections averted by the intervention. We calculated cost-effectiveness ratios for the complete intervention and for the condom use skills component of the intervention. RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, the intervention prevented an estimated 0.2195 new cases of HIV at a cost of $215,690 per case of HIV averted. When indirect costs of HIV were excluded from the analysis, the intervention's cost-effectiveness ratios were $357,690 per case of HIV averted and $31,851 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved. Under base case assumptions, the condom use skills component of the intervention prevented an estimated 0.1756 HIV infections and was cost-saving. When indirect HIV costs were excluded, the cost-effectiveness ratios for the condom use skills component of the intervention were $97,404 per case of HIV averted and $8,674 per QALY saved. CONCLUSIONS: The WINGS intervention, particularly the two sessions of the intervention which focussed on condom use skills, could be cost-effective in preventing HIV among women.