10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Infectious disease and economics: The case for considering multi-sectoral impacts

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Beyond the public health impacts of regional or global emerging and endemic infectious disease events lay wider socioeconomic consequences that are often not considered in risk or impact assessments. With rapid and extensive international travel and trade, such events can elicit economic shock waves far beyond the realm of traditional health sectors and original geographical range of a pathogen. While private sector organizations are impacted indirectly by these disease events, they are under-recognized yet effective stakeholders that can provide critical information, resources, and key partnerships to public and private health systems in response to and in preparation for potential infectious disease events and their socioeconomic consequences.

          Highlights

          • Assessing multi-sector impacts of zoonotic disease events provides new insights beyond engagement of the human health sector.

          • The private sector is an under-recognized stakeholder with key information and resources.

          • Public and private sector collaboration advances risk analysis and cost-sharing strategies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa.

          The harvest of wildlife for human consumption is valued at several billion dollars annually and provides an essential source of meat for hundreds of millions of rural people living in poverty. This harvest is also considered among the greatest threats to biodiversity throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Economic development is often proposed as an essential first step to win-win solutions for poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation by breaking rural reliance on wildlife. However, increases in wealth may accelerate consumption and extend the scale and efficiency of wildlife harvest. Our ability to assess the likelihood of these two contrasting outcomes and to design approaches that simultaneously consider poverty and biodiversity loss is impeded by a weak understanding of the direction and shape of their interaction. Here, we present results of economic and wildlife use surveys conducted in 2,000 households from 96 settlements in Ghana, Cameroon, Tanzania, and Madagascar. We examine the individual and interactive roles of wealth, relative food prices, market access, and opportunity costs of time spent hunting on household rates of wildlife consumption. Despite great differences in biogeographic, social, and economic aspects of our study sites, we found a consistent relationship between wealth and wildlife consumption. Wealthier households consume more bushmeat in settlements nearer urban areas, but the opposite pattern is observed in more isolated settlements. Wildlife hunting and consumption increase when alternative livelihoods collapse, but this safety net is an option only for those people living near harvestable wildlife.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The economic impact of H1N1 on Mexico's tourist and pork sectors.

            By examining tourist arrivals and pork output and trade statistics, this analysis estimates the economic impact to the Mexican tourism and pork sectors because of the H1N1 influenza pandemic. It also assesses the role of the international response in the context of this economic impact. For tourism, losing almost a million overseas visitors translated into losses of around $US2.8bn, which extended over a five-month period, mostly because of the slow return of European travellers. For the pork industry, temporal decreases in output were observed in most of the country and related to H1N1 incidence (p = 0.048, r = 0.37). By the end of 2009, Mexico had a pork trade deficit of $US27m. The losses derived from this pandemic were clearly influenced by the risk perception created in tourist-supplying and pork trade partners. Results suggest that the wider economic implications of health-related emergencies can be significant and need to be considered in preparedness planning. For instance, more effective surveillance and data gathering would enable policy to target emergency funding to the sectors and regions hardest hit. These results also stress the importance of being familiar with trade networks so as to be able to anticipate the international response and respond accordingly.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A Systematic Scoping Study of the Socio-Economic Impact of Rift Valley Fever: Research Gaps and Needs.

              Rift Valley fever (RVF) is a severe mosquito-borne disease affecting humans and domestic ruminants. RVF virus has been reported in most African countries, as well as in the Arabic Peninsula. This paper reviews the different types of socio-economic impact induced by RVF disease and the attempts to evaluate them. Of the 52 papers selected for this review, 13 types of socio-economic impact were identified according to the sector impacted, the level and temporal scale of the impact. RVF has a dramatic impact on producers and livestock industries, affecting public and animal health, food security and the livelihood of the pastoralist communities. RVF also has an impact on international trade and other agro-industries. The risk of introducing RVF into disease-free countries via the importation of an infected animal or mosquito is real, and the consequent restriction of access to export markets may induce dramatic economic consequences for national and local economies. Despite the important threat of RVF, few studies have been conducted to assess the socio-economic impact of the disease. The 17 studies identified for quantitative analysis in this review relied only on partial cost analysis, with limited reference to mid- and long-term impact, public health or risk mitigation measures. However, the estimated impacts were high (ranging from $5 to $470 million USD losses). To reduce the impact of RVF, early detection and rapid response should be implemented. Comprehensive disease impact studies are required to provide decision-makers with science-based information on the best intervention measure to implement ensuring efficient resource allocation. Through the analysis of RVF socio-economic impact, this scoping study proposes insights into the mechanisms underpinning its often-underestimated importance. This study highlights the need for comparative socio-economic studies to help decision-makers with their choices related to RVF disease management.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                One Health
                One Health
                One Health
                Elsevier
                2352-7714
                09 January 2019
                June 2019
                09 January 2019
                : 7
                : 100080
                Affiliations
                [a ]EcoHealth Alliance, 460 West 34th St, 1701, New York, NY 10001, USA
                [b ]City University of New York Graduate School of Public Health & Health Policy, 55 West 125th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA
                [c ]United Nations Association-National Capital Area, Washington, DC 20433, USA
                [d ]Working Group on Wildlife, World Organisation for Animal Health, 12 Rue du Prony, Paris 75017, France
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: EcoHealth Alliance, 460 West 34th St, 1701, New York, NY 10001, USA. karesh@ 123456ecohealthalliance.org
                Article
                S2352-7714(18)30034-X 100080
                10.1016/j.onehlt.2018.100080
                6330263
                30671528
                af75ff48-00eb-4047-95b9-d1e33e213755
                © 2019 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 June 2018
                : 11 December 2018
                : 31 December 2018
                Categories
                Review Paper

                one health,economic,infectious disease,preparedness,zoonoses

                Comments

                Comment on this article