Background: Multiple Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines appear to be safe and efficacious, but only high-income countries have the resources to procure sufficient vaccine doses for most of their eligible populations. The World Health Organization has published guidelines for vaccine prioritisation, but most vaccine impact projections have focused on high-income countries, and few incorporate economic considerations. To address this evidence gap, we projected the health and economic impact of different vaccination scenarios in Sindh Province, Pakistan (population: 48 million). Methods and findings: We fitted a compartmental transmission model to COVID-19 cases and deaths in Sindh from 30 April to 15 September 2020. We then projected cases, deaths, and hospitalisation outcomes over 10 years under different vaccine scenarios. Finally, we combined these projections with a detailed economic model to estimate incremental costs (from healthcare and partial societal perspectives), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each scenario. We project that 1 year of vaccine distribution, at delivery rates consistent with COVAX projections, using an infection-blocking vaccine at $3/dose with 70% efficacy and 2.5-year duration of protection is likely to avert around 0.9 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.9, 1.0) million cases, 10.1 (95% CrI: 10.1, 10.3) thousand deaths, and 70.1 (95% CrI: 69.9, 70.6) thousand DALYs, with an ICER of $27.9 per DALY averted from the health system perspective. Under a broad range of alternative scenarios, we find that initially prioritising the older (65+) population generally prevents more deaths. However, unprioritised distribution has almost the same cost-effectiveness when considering all outcomes, and both prioritised and unprioritised programmes can be cost-effective for low per-dose costs. High vaccine prices ($10/dose), however, may not be cost-effective, depending on the specifics of vaccine performance, distribution programme, and future pandemic trends. The principal drivers of the health outcomes are the fitted values for the overall transmission scaling parameter and disease natural history parameters from other studies, particularly age-specific probabilities of infection and symptomatic disease, as well as social contact rates. Other parameters are investigated in sensitivity analyses. This study is limited by model approximations, available data, and future uncertainty. Because the model is a single-population compartmental model, detailed impacts of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as household isolation cannot be practically represented or evaluated in combination with vaccine programmes. Similarly, the model cannot consider prioritising groups like healthcare or other essential workers. The model is only fitted to the reported case and death data, which are incomplete and not disaggregated by, e.g., age. Finally, because the future impact and implementation cost of NPIs are uncertain, how these would interact with vaccination remains an open question. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination can have a considerable health impact and is likely to be cost-effective if more optimistic vaccine scenarios apply. Preventing severe disease is an important contributor to this impact. However, the advantage of prioritising older, high-risk populations is smaller in generally younger populations. This reduction is especially true in populations with more past transmission, and if the vaccine is likely to further impede transmission rather than just disease. Those conditions are typical of many low- and middle-income countries.

Background: Countries designing a health benefit package (HBP) to support progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) require robust cost-effectiveness evidence. This paper reports on Pakistan’s approach to assessing the applicability of global cost-effectiveness evidence to country context as part of a HBP design process. Methods: A seven-step process was developed and implemented with Disease Control Priority 3 (DCP3) project partners to assess the applicability of global incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to Pakistan. First, the scope of the interventions to be assessed was defined and an independent, interdisciplinary team was formed. Second, the team familiarized itself with intervention descriptions. Third, the team identified studies from the Tufts Medical School Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) registry. Fourth, the team applied specific knock-out criteria to match identified studies to local intervention descriptions. Matches were then cross-checked across reviewers and further selection was made where there were multiple ICER matches. Sixth, a quality scoring system was applied to ICER values. Finally, a database was created containing all the ICER results with a justification for each decision, which was made available to decision-makers during HBP deliberation. Results: We found that less than 50% of the interventions in DCP3 could be supported with evidence of cost-effectiveness applicable to the country context. Out of 78 ICERs identified as applicable to Pakistan from the Tufts GH-CEA registry, only 20 ICERs were exact matches of the DCP3 Pakistan intervention descriptions and 58 were partial matches. Conclusion: This paper presents the first attempt globally to use the main public GH-CEA database to estimate cost-effectiveness in the context of HBPs at a country level. This approach is a useful learning for all countries trying to develop essential packages informed by the global database on ICERs, and it will support the design of future evidence and further development of methods.

Background: The Federal Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination (MNHSR&C) in Pakistan has committed to progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) by 2030 by providing an essential package for health services (EPHS). Starting in 2019, the Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) evidence framework was used to guide the development of Pakistan’s EPHS. In this paper, we describe the methods and results of a rapid costing approach used to inform the EPHS design process. Methods: A total of 167 unit costs were calculated through a context-specific, normative, ingredients-based, bottom-up economic costing approach. Costs were constructed by determining resource use from descriptions provided by MNHSR&C and validated by technical experts. Price data from publicly available sources were used. Deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out. Results: Unit costs ranged from 2019 US$ 0.27 to 2019 US$ 1,478. Interventions in the cancer package of services had the highest average cost (2019 US$ 837) while interventions in the environmental package of services had the lowest (2019 US$ 0.68). Cost drivers varied by platform; the two largest drivers were drug regimens and surgery-related costs. Sensitivity analyses suggest our results are not sensitive to changes in staff salary but are sensitive to changes in medicine pricing. Conclusion: We estimated a large number of context-specific unit costs, over a six-month period, demonstrating a rapid costing method suitable for EPHS design.

Background: Pakistan embarked on a process of designing an essential package of health services (EPHS) as a pathway towards universal health coverage (UHC). The EPHS design followed an evidence-informed deliberative process; evidence on 170 interventions was introduced along multiple stages of appraisal engaging different stakeholders tasked with prioritising interventions for inclusion. We report on the composition of the package at different stages, analyse trends of prioritised and deprioritised interventions and reflect on the trade-offs made. Methods: Quantitative evidence on cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and avoidable burden of disease was presented to stakeholders in stages. We recorded which interventions were prioritised and deprioritised at each stage and carried out three analyses: (1) a review of total number of interventions prioritised at each stage, along with associated costs per capita and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, to understand changes in affordability and efficiency in the package, (2) an analysis of interventions broken down by decision criteria and intervention characteristics to analyse prioritisation trends across different stages, and (3) a description of the trajectory of interventions broken down by current coverage and cost-effectiveness. Results: Value for money generally increased throughout the process, although not uniformly. Stakeholders largely prioritised interventions with low budget impact and those preventing a high burden of disease. Highly cost-effective interventions were also prioritised, but less consistently throughout the stages of the process. Interventions with high current coverage were overwhelmingly prioritised for inclusion. Conclusion: Evidence-informed deliberative processes can produce actionable and affordable health benefit packages. While cost-effective interventions are generally preferred, other factors play a role and limit efficiency.

Introduction. Pakistan has the highest childhood mortality associated with diarrheal diseases. The objective of this study is to identify underlying factors contributing to lack of knowledge among mothers regarding vaccine’s efficacy in the prevention of diarrhea. Methodology. Secondary data was analyzed from a cross-sectional household survey in Northern Pakistan of eligible households having under-2-year children. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were carried out. Results. Only 30% of the mothers had knowledge regarding diarrhea prevention by vaccine. The main factors found significantly correlated with this knowledge were mother’s education, distance of households from EPI centers, immunization status of children, counseling regarding clean drinking water and hygiene, provision of ORS, and antenatal care services by LHWs. Conclusion. Women’s literacy, access to care and LHW services are important for improving awareness and acceptance of vaccines for vaccine preventable diseases including diarrhea. Policy makers need to focus on improved monitoring and reprioritization of undermined services by LHWs.

Background: Understanding health-seeking behaviors of caregivers is important to reduce child mortality. Several factors influence decision-making related to childhood illnesses. Objective: The objective of this study was to gather caretaker narratives to develop a comprehensive understanding of the context and process of caregiving at household level during all stages of an episode of diarrhea and pneumonia in children < 5. Methods: Using a narrative interview approach, stories from caregivers of children < 5 were collected from a rural district in Sindh Pakistan. Eleven households with children < 5 were randomly selected and purposive sampling was done to interview 20 caregivers. All data collection was conducted privately in participants’ homes and informed consent taken. Manual content analysis was carried out by three independent researchers and emerging themes drawn. Results: The role of joint family system is integral in making decisions and the child’s paternal grandmother, is an important and trusted source of information regarding child sickness in the household. They often promote home remedies with considerable authority prior to formal consultation with the health care system. Caregivers were generally dissatisfied with doctors in the public sector who were perceived to be providing free consultation with a poor quality of care and long waiting time as compared to private doctors. Financial considerations and child support were favorably addressed in households with a joint family system. Conclusion: The joint family system provides a strong support system, but also tends to reduce parental autonomy in decision-making and delay first contact with formal health providers. Prevalent home remedies, and authority of elders in the family influence management practices. Interventions for reducing improving child mortality should be cognizant of the context of decision-making and social influences at the household level.