GSK vaccination costing
Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Permalink
Failed to load latest commit information.
africa_shp
img
.gitignore
Cost review paper - References.docx
Cost review paper - Tables and figures.docx
Literature Review_08_01_2016.xlsx
README.md
Review of costs - draft 1.docx
already_read.RData
bibliography.bib
christophe_comments.txt
currency.csv
gdp_per_capita.csv
get_data.R
get_papers.R
gsk.Rproj
gsk_google.xlsx
gsk_pre_report.Rmd
gsk_pre_report.html
gsk_report.Rmd
gsk_report.html
helpers.R
malaria_cost_df.csv
papers_to_use.csv
ppp.csv
prisma.JPG
pubmed_results.csv
search_pubmed.R
usd_inflation.csv

README.md

gsk

GSK vaccination costing

Dear Christophe,

Thank you for your useful and spot-on suggestions. As per your requests, here are the changes I've made in the most recent version.

EXPLANATORY TEXT WITH EACH DENSITY DISTRIBUTION CHART: Now each type-specific distribution chart has some explanatory text and comments.

COMMENT REGARDING KEY DIFFERENCES: I've added a short sub-section explaining our difficulty in assessing the key determinants in differences in costs, due to lack of standardization in reporting.

CLARIFICATION OF ROUTINE VS. CAMPAIGN: I have clarified the language to better segregate between what is trial vs. campaign, and what is intro vs. non-intro.

EFFECT OF CAMPAIGN TYPE ON COST: Christophe requested to see the "average administration cost per dose" provide as a function of the campaign type. This information is now included (two more charts, plus explanatory text).

MODEL FOR EXTRAPOLATING TO ALL SUB-SAHARAN COUNTRIES: I agree with Christophe that this is likely best left out. I've left it in FOR NOW only so that this draft has full information (ie, it's easier to take things out later than to add things back in).

Chrstophe's comments

Many thanks for this updated report. We have provided it to the medical writer to provide a first draft of a manuscript.

Some important points to be mentioned in the publication in my opinion:

  •      Include a mention of the reason for some distributions as you highlighted below, even if the study is not removed from the distribution
    
  •      Explain the key differences between the studies: methods and ways of reporting may have quite a dramatic influence on the way these results are finally aggregated.
    
  •      The difference between introduction and routine is critical to have a correct understanding of the results… and the text seems to use “routine” and “campaign” as synonymous but these are different administration approaches, campaigns are fairly typical of measles or cholera  immunizations to react to outbreaks and can be much more costly than true routine immunization (for example for DTP vaccines).
    
  •      An average administration cost per dose should be provided in function of this key differences: introduction, routine and campaign
    

Regarding the model for extrapolation to all sub-Sahara African countries, I’d rather suggest to include it in a separate publication, like a short report. Seen the limited data, you could even include the results from the study over 5 countries to feed the model? Would this be fine on your end?