Abstract
BackgroundThere has been increasing debate surrounding mask and respirator interventions to control respiratory infection transmission in both healthcare and community settings. As decision makers are considering the recommendations they should evaluate how to provide the most efficient protection strategies with minimum costs. The aim of this review is to identify and evaluate the existing economic evaluation literature in this area and to offer advice on how future evaluations on this topic should be conducted.MethodsWe searched the Scopus database for all literature on economic evaluation of mask or respirator use to control respiratory infection transmission. Reference lists from the identified studies were also manually searched. Seven studies met our inclusion criteria from the initial 806 studies identified by the search strategy and our manual search.ResultsFive studies considered interventions for seasonal and/or pandemic influenza, with one also considering SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). The other two studies focussed on tuberculosis transmission control interventions. The settings and methodologies of the studies varied greatly. No low-middle income settings were identified. Only one of the reviewed studies cited clinical evidence to inform their mask/respirator intervention effectiveness parameters. Mask and respirator interventions were generally reported by the study authors to be cost saving or cost-effective when compared to no intervention or other control measures, however the evaluations had important limitations.ConclusionsGiven the large cost differential between masks and respirators, there is a need for more comprehensive economic evaluations to compare the relative costs and benefits of these interventions in situations and settings where alternative options are potentially applicable. There are at present insufficient well conducted cost-effectiveness studies to inform decision-makers on the value for money of alternative mask/respirator options.
Highlights
There has been increasing debate surrounding mask and respirator interventions to control respiratory infection transmission in both healthcare and community settings
Both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines recommend the use of a mask in low-risk settings and a respirator in high-risk settings to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from seasonal influenza [1, 2]
To date, no other mask/respirator economic evaluations have been identified that focus on SARS, MERS-CoV or other respiratory viruses
Summary
There has been increasing debate surrounding mask and respirator interventions to control respiratory infection transmission in both healthcare and community settings. The aim of this review is to identify and evaluate the existing economic evaluation literature in this area and to offer advice on how future evaluations on this topic should be conducted Both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines recommend the use of a mask in low-risk settings and a respirator in high-risk settings (e.g. during aerosol generating procedures) to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from seasonal influenza [1, 2]. In the absence of standardised mask/respirator nomenclature [7], we will use the term ‘mask’ to indicate standard surgical masks, referred to as “medical masks” in some countries These are not specially engineered to protect the wearer from aerosol transmission of droplet nuclei and viral particles [8, 9]. Several air purifying respirators that filter the inhaled air through filtering materials are available for use by HCWs [10], these include: N95, HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air), PARP (powered air purifying respirator), DM (dust-mist) and DMF (dust-mist-fume)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
