Volume 21, Number 6—June 2015
Research
Cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia Vaccination Programs for Young Women
Table 4
Summary rank regression results for select parameters used in the model to determine the health and economic outcomes of a hypothetical chlamydia vaccine
Variable/parameter* | Rank coefficient† | p value |
---|---|---|
Dependent variable: prevaccination prevalence in women | ||
Proportion of women in low activity class | −0.85 | 0.0001 |
Duration of infection-conferred immunity | −0.77 | 0.0001 |
Per-partner probability of transmission, man to women | 0.73 | 0.0001 |
Duration of asymptomatic infection in women | 0.50 | 0.0001 |
Duration of asymptomatic infection in men | 0.49 | 0.0001 |
Mixing parameter | −0.45 | 0.0001 |
Proportion of symptomatic infections for women | −0.40 | 0.0001 |
Proportion of symptomatic infections for men | −0.38 | 0.0001 |
Annual screening coverage for women | −0.36 | 0.0001 |
No. partners in past year, low sexual activity women | 0.30 | 0.0001 |
No. partners in past year, high sexual activity women | 0.30 | 0.012 |
No. partners in past year, low sexual activity men | 0.27 | 0.013 |
Duration of symptomatic infection for women | 0.21 | 0.047 |
Probability of postscreening treatment | −0.18 | 0.069 |
Relative size of the 14-y-old population | 0.12 | 0.091 |
Dependent variable: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio | ||
Prevaccination prevalence for women | −0.77 | 0.0001 |
Vaccine cost | 0.71 | 0.0001 |
Duration of vaccine-conferred immunity | −0.50 | 0.0001 |
Vaccine efficacy | −0.45 | 0.0001 |
Probability of sequelae for women | −0.32 | 0.0001 |
Discount rate | 0.29 | 0.0001 |
*Only variables/parameters for which p<0.10 are shown.
†Presented in decreasing order of absolute magnitude.