The Thai government implemented COVID-19 booster vaccines to prevent morbidity and mortality during the spreading of the Omicron variant. However, little is known about which types of vaccine should be invested in as the booster dose for the Thai population. This study aims to investigate the most cost-effective COVID-19 vaccine for a booster shot as empirical evidence for Thai policymakers. This study applied a stochastic simulation based on a compartmental susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered model and included system dynamics in the model. We evaluated three scenarios: (1) No booster, (2) A viral vector vaccine as the booster dose, (3) An mRNA vaccine as the booster dose. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated based on provider perspectives. We found the number of cases in scenarios with viral vector and mRNA booster doses to be lower than in the non-booster group. Likewise, the number of deaths in the viral vector and the mRNA booster scenarios was threefold lower than in the no-booster scenario. Moreover, the estimated grand cost for the no-booster scenario was over 100 billion baht, while viral vector and mRNA scenario costs were 70 and 64.7 billion baht, respectively. ICER shows that viral vector and mRNA scenarios are more cost-effective than the no-booster scenario. Viral vector booster shot appeared to be slightly more cost-effective than mRNA booster shot in terms of death aversion. However, being boosted by an mRNA vaccine seemed slightly more cost-effective than a viral vector vaccine concerning case aversion. In conclusion, policies to promote COVID-19 booster shots in the Thai population by either mRNA or viral vector vaccines are likely to be worthwhile for both economic and public health reasons.

An effective Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework helps vaccination programme managers determine progress and effectiveness for agreed indicators against clear benchmarks and targets. We aimed to identify the literature on M&E frameworks and indicators used in national vaccination programmes and synthesise approaches and lessons to inform development of future frameworks. We conducted a scoping review using Arksey and O’Malley’s six-stage framework to identify and synthesise sources on monitoring or evaluation of national vaccination implementation that described a framework or indicators. The findings were summarised thematically. We included 43 eligible sources of 4291 screened. Most (95%) were in English and discussed high-income (51%) or middle-income (30%) settings, with 13 in Europe (30%), 10 in Asia-Pacific (23%), nine in Africa (21%), and eight in the Americas (19%), respectively, while three crossed regions. Only five (12%) specified the use of an M&E framework. Most (32/43; 74%) explicitly or implicitly included vaccine coverage indicators, followed by 12 including operational (28%), five including clinical (12%), and two including cost indicators (5%). The use of M&E frameworks was seldom explicit or clearly defined in our sources, with indicators rarely fully defined or benchmarked against targets. Sources focused on ways to improve vaccination programmes without explicitly considering ways to improve assessment. Literature on M&E framework and indicator use in national vaccination programmes is limited and focused on routine childhood vaccination. Therefore, documentation of more experiences and lessons is needed to better inform vaccination M&E beyond childhood.

As COVID-19 ravages the world, many countries are faced with the grim reality of not having enough critical-care resources to go around. Knowing what could be in store, the Thai Ministry of Public Health called for the creation of an explicit protocol to determine how these resources are to be rationed in the situation of demand exceeding supply. This paper shares the experience of developing triage criteria and a mechanism for prioritizing intensive care unit resources in a middle-income country with the potential to be applied to other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faced with a similar (if not more of a) challenge when responding to the global pandemic. To the best of our knowledge, this locally developed guideline would be among the first of its kind from an LMIC setting. In summary, the experience from the Thai protocol development highlights three important lessons. First, stakeholder consultation and public engagement are crucial steps to ensure the protocol reflects the priorities of society and to maintain public trust in the health system. Second, all bodies and actions proposed in the protocol must not conflict with existing laws to ensure smooth implementation and adherence by professionals. Last, all components of the protocol must be compatible with the local context including medical culture, physician–patient relationship, and religious and societal norms.