A passive cold storage device economic model to evaluate selected immunization location scenarios

Bryan A. Norman, Sevnaz Nourollahi, Sheng I. Chen, Shawn T. Brown, Erin G. Claypool, Diana L. Connor, Michelle M. Schmitz, Jayant Rajgopal, Angela R. Wateska, Bruce Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The challenge of keeping vaccines cold at health posts given the unreliability of power sources in many low- and middle-income countries and the expense and maintenance requirements of solar refrigerators has motivated the development of passive cold storage devices (PCDs), containers that keep vaccines cold without using an active energy source. With different PCDs under development, manufacturers, policymakers and funders need guidance on how varying different PCD characteristics may affect the devices' cost and utility. Methods: We developed an economic spreadsheet model representing the lowest two levels of a typical Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) vaccine supply chain: a district store, the immunization locations that the district store serves, and the transport vehicles that operate between the district store and the immunization locations. The model compares the use of three vaccine storage device options [(1) portable PCDs, (2) stationary PCDs, or (3) solar refrigerators] and allows the user to vary different device (e.g., size and cost) and scenario characteristics (e.g., catchment area population size and vaccine schedule). Results: For a sample set of select scenarios and equipment specification, we found the portable PCD to generally be better suited to populations of 5,000 or less. The stationary PCD replenished once per month can be a robust design especially with a 35L capacity and a cost of $2,500 or less. The solar device was generally a reasonable alternative for most of the scenarios explored if the cost was $2,100 or less (including installation). No one device type dominated over all explored circumstances. Therefore, the best device may vary from country-to-country and location-to-location within a country. Conclusions: This study introduces a quantitative model to help guide PCD development. Although our selected set of explored scenarios and device designs was not exhaustive, future explorations can further alter model input values to represent additional scenarios and device designs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5232-5238
Number of pages7
JournalVaccine
Volume31
Issue number45
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 25 2013

Fingerprint

Economic Models
econometric models
cold storage
Immunization
immunization
Equipment and Supplies
vaccines
refrigerators
Vaccines
Equipment Design
Costs and Cost Analysis
supply chain
containers
income
population size
Electric Power Supplies
Immunization Programs
energy
Population Density

Keywords

  • Cold chain
  • Delivery
  • Storage
  • Vaccines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Microbiology(all)
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • veterinary(all)
  • Molecular Medicine

Cite this

Norman, B. A., Nourollahi, S., Chen, S. I., Brown, S. T., Claypool, E. G., Connor, D. L., ... Lee, B. (2013). A passive cold storage device economic model to evaluate selected immunization location scenarios. Vaccine, 31(45), 5232-5238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.079

A passive cold storage device economic model to evaluate selected immunization location scenarios. / Norman, Bryan A.; Nourollahi, Sevnaz; Chen, Sheng I.; Brown, Shawn T.; Claypool, Erin G.; Connor, Diana L.; Schmitz, Michelle M.; Rajgopal, Jayant; Wateska, Angela R.; Lee, Bruce.

In: Vaccine, Vol. 31, No. 45, 25.10.2013, p. 5232-5238.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Norman, BA, Nourollahi, S, Chen, SI, Brown, ST, Claypool, EG, Connor, DL, Schmitz, MM, Rajgopal, J, Wateska, AR & Lee, B 2013, 'A passive cold storage device economic model to evaluate selected immunization location scenarios', Vaccine, vol. 31, no. 45, pp. 5232-5238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.079
Norman BA, Nourollahi S, Chen SI, Brown ST, Claypool EG, Connor DL et al. A passive cold storage device economic model to evaluate selected immunization location scenarios. Vaccine. 2013 Oct 25;31(45):5232-5238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.079
Norman, Bryan A. ; Nourollahi, Sevnaz ; Chen, Sheng I. ; Brown, Shawn T. ; Claypool, Erin G. ; Connor, Diana L. ; Schmitz, Michelle M. ; Rajgopal, Jayant ; Wateska, Angela R. ; Lee, Bruce. / A passive cold storage device economic model to evaluate selected immunization location scenarios. In: Vaccine. 2013 ; Vol. 31, No. 45. pp. 5232-5238.
@article{ec2995b791294984b1586ccb353aab5b,
title = "A passive cold storage device economic model to evaluate selected immunization location scenarios",
abstract = "Background: The challenge of keeping vaccines cold at health posts given the unreliability of power sources in many low- and middle-income countries and the expense and maintenance requirements of solar refrigerators has motivated the development of passive cold storage devices (PCDs), containers that keep vaccines cold without using an active energy source. With different PCDs under development, manufacturers, policymakers and funders need guidance on how varying different PCD characteristics may affect the devices' cost and utility. Methods: We developed an economic spreadsheet model representing the lowest two levels of a typical Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) vaccine supply chain: a district store, the immunization locations that the district store serves, and the transport vehicles that operate between the district store and the immunization locations. The model compares the use of three vaccine storage device options [(1) portable PCDs, (2) stationary PCDs, or (3) solar refrigerators] and allows the user to vary different device (e.g., size and cost) and scenario characteristics (e.g., catchment area population size and vaccine schedule). Results: For a sample set of select scenarios and equipment specification, we found the portable PCD to generally be better suited to populations of 5,000 or less. The stationary PCD replenished once per month can be a robust design especially with a 35L capacity and a cost of $2,500 or less. The solar device was generally a reasonable alternative for most of the scenarios explored if the cost was $2,100 or less (including installation). No one device type dominated over all explored circumstances. Therefore, the best device may vary from country-to-country and location-to-location within a country. Conclusions: This study introduces a quantitative model to help guide PCD development. Although our selected set of explored scenarios and device designs was not exhaustive, future explorations can further alter model input values to represent additional scenarios and device designs.",
keywords = "Cold chain, Delivery, Storage, Vaccines",
author = "Norman, {Bryan A.} and Sevnaz Nourollahi and Chen, {Sheng I.} and Brown, {Shawn T.} and Claypool, {Erin G.} and Connor, {Diana L.} and Schmitz, {Michelle M.} and Jayant Rajgopal and Wateska, {Angela R.} and Bruce Lee",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.079",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "5232--5238",
journal = "Vaccine",
issn = "0264-410X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "45",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A passive cold storage device economic model to evaluate selected immunization location scenarios

AU - Norman, Bryan A.

AU - Nourollahi, Sevnaz

AU - Chen, Sheng I.

AU - Brown, Shawn T.

AU - Claypool, Erin G.

AU - Connor, Diana L.

AU - Schmitz, Michelle M.

AU - Rajgopal, Jayant

AU - Wateska, Angela R.

AU - Lee, Bruce

PY - 2013/10/25

Y1 - 2013/10/25

N2 - Background: The challenge of keeping vaccines cold at health posts given the unreliability of power sources in many low- and middle-income countries and the expense and maintenance requirements of solar refrigerators has motivated the development of passive cold storage devices (PCDs), containers that keep vaccines cold without using an active energy source. With different PCDs under development, manufacturers, policymakers and funders need guidance on how varying different PCD characteristics may affect the devices' cost and utility. Methods: We developed an economic spreadsheet model representing the lowest two levels of a typical Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) vaccine supply chain: a district store, the immunization locations that the district store serves, and the transport vehicles that operate between the district store and the immunization locations. The model compares the use of three vaccine storage device options [(1) portable PCDs, (2) stationary PCDs, or (3) solar refrigerators] and allows the user to vary different device (e.g., size and cost) and scenario characteristics (e.g., catchment area population size and vaccine schedule). Results: For a sample set of select scenarios and equipment specification, we found the portable PCD to generally be better suited to populations of 5,000 or less. The stationary PCD replenished once per month can be a robust design especially with a 35L capacity and a cost of $2,500 or less. The solar device was generally a reasonable alternative for most of the scenarios explored if the cost was $2,100 or less (including installation). No one device type dominated over all explored circumstances. Therefore, the best device may vary from country-to-country and location-to-location within a country. Conclusions: This study introduces a quantitative model to help guide PCD development. Although our selected set of explored scenarios and device designs was not exhaustive, future explorations can further alter model input values to represent additional scenarios and device designs.

AB - Background: The challenge of keeping vaccines cold at health posts given the unreliability of power sources in many low- and middle-income countries and the expense and maintenance requirements of solar refrigerators has motivated the development of passive cold storage devices (PCDs), containers that keep vaccines cold without using an active energy source. With different PCDs under development, manufacturers, policymakers and funders need guidance on how varying different PCD characteristics may affect the devices' cost and utility. Methods: We developed an economic spreadsheet model representing the lowest two levels of a typical Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) vaccine supply chain: a district store, the immunization locations that the district store serves, and the transport vehicles that operate between the district store and the immunization locations. The model compares the use of three vaccine storage device options [(1) portable PCDs, (2) stationary PCDs, or (3) solar refrigerators] and allows the user to vary different device (e.g., size and cost) and scenario characteristics (e.g., catchment area population size and vaccine schedule). Results: For a sample set of select scenarios and equipment specification, we found the portable PCD to generally be better suited to populations of 5,000 or less. The stationary PCD replenished once per month can be a robust design especially with a 35L capacity and a cost of $2,500 or less. The solar device was generally a reasonable alternative for most of the scenarios explored if the cost was $2,100 or less (including installation). No one device type dominated over all explored circumstances. Therefore, the best device may vary from country-to-country and location-to-location within a country. Conclusions: This study introduces a quantitative model to help guide PCD development. Although our selected set of explored scenarios and device designs was not exhaustive, future explorations can further alter model input values to represent additional scenarios and device designs.

KW - Cold chain

KW - Delivery

KW - Storage

KW - Vaccines

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885960952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885960952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.079

DO - 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.079

M3 - Article

C2 - 24021310

AN - SCOPUS:84885960952

VL - 31

SP - 5232

EP - 5238

JO - Vaccine

JF - Vaccine

SN - 0264-410X

IS - 45

ER -