2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.08.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cost-benefit analysis of foot and mouth disease control in Ethiopia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
34
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
34
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, for the region of Agadez, the overall relatively more expensive vaccination costs could be explained by the existence of longer distances between two vaccination centres within the region. However, the overall vaccine cost per animal (0.11 euros) estimated in this study was in some respect in accordance with that of Jemberu, Mourits, Rushton, and Hogeveen () in Ethiopia (0.08 euros). Although for Niger the estimated cost of the vaccine was provided by the Botswana Vaccine Institute, the same laboratory where Ethiopia purchased their FMD vaccine, in contrast to the cost calculation of Jemberu et al.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…On the other hand, for the region of Agadez, the overall relatively more expensive vaccination costs could be explained by the existence of longer distances between two vaccination centres within the region. However, the overall vaccine cost per animal (0.11 euros) estimated in this study was in some respect in accordance with that of Jemberu, Mourits, Rushton, and Hogeveen () in Ethiopia (0.08 euros). Although for Niger the estimated cost of the vaccine was provided by the Botswana Vaccine Institute, the same laboratory where Ethiopia purchased their FMD vaccine, in contrast to the cost calculation of Jemberu et al.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Although for Niger the estimated cost of the vaccine was provided by the Botswana Vaccine Institute, the same laboratory where Ethiopia purchased their FMD vaccine, in contrast to the cost calculation of Jemberu et al. () the estimations from our study were based on empirical data rather than on expert opinion. Moreover, the empirical data in this study at regional level and the use of a stochastic modelling approach most likely considered the uncertainty and variability of the input parameters in the analysis (Briggs et al., ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Instead, the assumption of vaccine efficacy may increase vaccination costs if significant barriers to improving vaccine quality exist. Reducing inter-herd contact through restricted animal movements addresses infection risk but the lack of access to markets and constraints on traditional open grazing practices limits implementation in East Africa [24].…”
Section: Decision Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 FMD is often not considered a priority in endemic regions where low production and extensive livestock systems predominate. 8 However, there is growing evidence to support the alternative argument that at the individual household level FMD is important in terms of direct losses of production, 9 lower fertility and loss of other livestock services such as draft power. 10 Furthermore, it has indirect impacts preventing access to international markets, limiting genetic improvement and preventing development of diary production.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11,12 There is now clear economic evidence for low and middle income countries to invest in control by vaccination with a cost benefit ratio of more than 4. 9 Furthermore, there is a global societal good to control of FMD in endemic areas, as these reservoirs of disease present a clear and present risk to disease free areas or areas using vaccination, through trade in animal products and animal movements as demonstrated by the recent rapid expansion of the serotype O/ME-SA/IND-2001 lineage across the Middle East and North Africa Southeast and East Asia from Indian sub-continent. 13,14 The best defense for disease free regions is to reduce the risk to themselves through reducing the disease burden in endemic areas.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%