The economics of zoonoses and their control.

Shaw, Alexandra; Rushton, J.

doi:10.1079/9781845931940.0161

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although WHO publishes annual tables showing how many DALYs a year different diseases are estimated to cost, the zoonotic component of infectious diseases is largely missing from the league of tables (Coleman 2002, in Shaw 2009. In some works, total burden of disease is calculated; where this is done, conventionally, direct burden of disease in people is measured in DALYs, and all the other components (direct losses in animals and costs of prevention and treatment in people and animals) are measured in monetary terms (Brazier et al 2007;Drummond et al 2005;Shaw 2009).…”

Section: Measurement Of Burden Of Disease In Humansmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…about 60%) of all infectious diseases of humans and most (i.e. about 75%) emerging infectious diseases of humans have been shown to have an animal origin, and thereby of zoonotic nature (Jones et al 2008;Taylor, Latham & Woolhouse 2001;Otte et al 2007;Woolhouse & Gowtage-Sequeria 2005, cited by Shaw 2009). Examples of such emerging diseases include Ebola, avian influenza, pandemic influenza, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS, bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE) and the Nipah virus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A socio-economic approach to One Health policy research in southern Africa

Kayunze

Kiwara

Lyamuya

et al. 2012

Onderstepoort J Vet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One-health approaches have started being applied to health systems in some countries in controlling infectious diseases in order to reduce the burden of disease in humans, livestock and wild animals collaboratively. However, one wonders whether the problem of lingering and emerging zoonoses is more affected by health policies, low application of one-health approaches, or other factors. As part of efforts to answer this question, the Southern African Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance (SACIDS) smart partnership of human health, animal health and socio-economic experts published, in April 2011, a conceptual framework to support One Health research for policy on emerging zoonoses. The main objective of this paper was to identify which factors really affect the burden of disease and how the burden could affect socio-economic well-being. Amongst other issues, the review of literature shows that the occurrence of infectious diseases in humans and animals is driven by many factors, the most important ones being the causative agents (viruses, bacteria, parasites, etc.) and the mediator conditions (social, cultural, economic or climatic) which facilitate the infection to occur and hold. Literature also shows that in many countries there is little collaboration between medical and veterinary services despite the shared underlying science and the increasing infectious disease threat. In view of these findings, a research to inform health policy must walk on two legs: a natural sciences leg and a social sciences one.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Of Burden Of Disease In Humansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A socio-economic approach to One Health policy research in southern Africa

Kayunze

Kiwara

Lyamuya

et al. 2012

Onderstepoort J Vet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following this, there is broad consensus that the economic analysis of zoonoses control programmes should be based on a holistic measurement of ‘total societal benefits’ as compared to simply calculating the total costs of controlling disease in humans and in animal reservoirs [ 6 ]. This requires an understanding of the level of integration [ 7 – 8 ] and comprehensive economics metrics to compare cost-effective control methods [ 9 ]. In the past, integrated control of neglected tropical diseases such as trachoma and primary healthcare [ 10 ], schistosomiasis and STH using common drugs [ 11 ], rabies in the animal health sector [ 12 ] among others have been attempted with varying results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved methods to capture the total societal benefits of zoonotic disease control: Demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of an integrated control programme for Taenia solium, soil transmitted helminths and classical swine fever in northern Lao PDR

Okello

Inthavong³

et al. 2018

PLoS Negl Trop Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundControl and elimination of zoonotic diseases requires robust information about their effect on both human and livestock health in order to enable policy formulation and the allocation of resources. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of controlling Taenia solium taeniasis/cysticercosis in both humans and pigs, and soil-transmitted helminths (STH) in humans by integrating their control to on-going human and animal health control programmes in northern Lao People’s Democratic Republic.MethodA cross-sectional study was carried out in 49 households, focusing on the prevalence of T. solium taenias/cysticercosis and soil transmitted helminths before and after a twelve month intervention. The village data was collected using a semi-structured questionnaire through a door-to-door survey. The village data was then projected to the wider northern Lao PDR population using stochastic modelling and cost-effectiveness ratio (after aggregating the net cost to capture both human and animal health parameters) and GDP per capita as a threshold, to determine the cost-effectiveness of the integrated control of T. solium taeniasis/ cysticercosis and STH, assuming linear scaling out of the intervention. The zoonotic DALY (zDALY) approach was also used as an alternative method of estimating the cost-effectiveness ratio of controlling T. solium taeniasis/cysticercosis in humans and pigs.FindingsUsing cost-effectiveness analysis after aggregating the net cost and control of T. solium taeniasis/cysticercosis alone as the base case, the study found that simultaneous control of T. solium taeniasis/cysticercosis in humans and pigs, STH in humans and Classical Swine Fever (CSF) in pigs was USD 14 per DALY averted and USD 234 per zDALY averted using zDALY method hence considered highly cost-effective whereas controlling T. solium taeniasis/cysticercosis without incorporating STH and CSF was the least cost-effective (USD 3,672 per DALY averted). Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of controlling T. solium taeniasis/cysticercosis in people and pigs using zDALY as an alternative method was USD 3,662 per zDALY averted which was quite close to our findings using the aggregate net cost method.ConclusionThe study showed that control of T. solium taeniasis/cysticercosis alone in humans and pigs is not cost-effective in northern Lao PDR whereas control of STH is. Consequently, integrating T. solium taeniasis/cysticercosis control with other cost-effective programmes such as STH and CSF markedly improved the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. This is especially important in low resource countries where control of zoonotic neglected tropical diseases could be integrated with the human and animal health sectors to optimize use of the limited resources.Trial registrationAustralia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12614001067662.

show abstract

“…Therefore, motivating the sustainable involvement of livestock authorities and producers, who may have other disease priorities, can often prove difficult. 11 Economic arguments can, however, provide a strong justification for local and national governments to act. Given the potential impact of schistosomiasis on animal health and productivity, a One Health economic evaluation of extending treatment to animal hosts in sub-Saharan Africa appears warranted, and requires data to be gathered on the costs and benefits to both sectors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should we be treating animal schistosomiasis in Africa? The need for a One Health economic evaluation of schistosomiasis control in people and their livestock

Gower

Vince

Webster

2017

Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A One Health economic perspective allows informed decisions to be made regarding control priorities and/or implementation strategies for infectious diseases. Schistosomiasis is a major and highly resilient disease of both humans and livestock. The zoonotic component of transmission in sub-Saharan Africa appears to be more significant than previously assumed, and may thereby affect the recently revised WHO vision to eliminate schistosomiasis as a public health problem by 2025. Moreover, animal schistosomiasis is likely to be a significant cost to affected communities due to its direct and indirect impact on livelihoods. We argue here for a comprehensive evaluation of the economic burden of livestock and zoonotic schistosomiasis in sub-Saharan Africa in order to determine if extending treatment to include animal hosts in a One Health approach is economically, as well as epidemiologically, desirable.

show abstract

The economics of zoonoses and their control.

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

A socio-economic approach to One Health policy research in southern Africa

A socio-economic approach to One Health policy research in southern Africa

Improved methods to capture the total societal benefits of zoonotic disease control: Demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of an integrated control programme for Taenia solium, soil transmitted helminths and classical swine fever in northern Lao PDR

Should we be treating animal schistosomiasis in Africa? The need for a One Health economic evaluation of schistosomiasis control in people and their livestock

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About