Abstract
Background: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are central to mitigating COVID-19 and influenza, yet comparative economic evaluations remain scarce. This systematic review assessed the cost effectiveness and reporting quality of NPI evaluations across both diseases. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024552613).
Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched five medical (PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EconLit) and four health technology assessment databases (NHS HTA, CRD DARE, NHS EED, and INAHTA) up to December 2025, including only full economic evaluations. The search strategy incorporated four domains-'influenza,' 'COVID-19,' 'NPIs,' and 'economic evaluation'-and was guided by the WHO NPI framework, encompassing five domains: personal protective, environmental, physical distancing, travel-related, and educational measures. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) checklist.
Results: Thirty-three studies (13 influenza, 20 COVID-19), predominantly from high-income countries, were included. School closures, the most frequently evaluated NPI, were generally not cost effective except during severe pandemics or bundled with other measures. Workforce and business closures were cost effective only in high-severity influenza, with inconsistent findings for COVID-19. Social distancing was cost effective for COVID-19 but not for H1N1 influenza. Isolation, lockdowns, and travel restrictions were cost effective only when implemented early. Face masks and hand hygiene, assessed solely for COVID-19, were generally cost effective when implemented alongside other measures. The median CHEERS score was 75.0%, with one study rated excellent.
Conclusion: Our review highlights heterogeneity in cost effectiveness by pandemic severity, intervention type, bundling of measures, and timing. Strategies that combined low-cost NPIs like masks or hand hygiene demonstrated better value, while socially disruptive measures like school and business closure incurred high costs with inconsistent cost-effectiveness outcomes. Integration with vaccines or antivirals further enhanced cost effectiveness. Evidence gaps include the scarcity of evaluations from low-resource settings and variability in country-specific value thresholds. Addressing these gaps is essential for guiding efficient and cost-effective pandemic preparedness.