tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Rev Sci Tech. 2015 Dec;34(3):813-27.
[h=1]Cost-benefit analysis of avian influenza control in Nepal.[/h] Karki S, Lupiani B, Budke CM, Karki NP, Rushton J, Ivanek R.
[h=3]Abstract[/h] Numerous outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza A strain H5N1 have occurred in Nepal since 2009 despite implementation of a national programme to control the disease through surveillance and culling of infected poultry flocks. The objective of the study was to use cost-benefit analysis to compare the current control programme (CCP) with the possible alternatives of: i) no intervention (i.e., absence of control measures [ACM]) and ii) vaccinating 60% of the national poultry flock twice a year. In terms of the benefit-cost ratio, findings indicate a return of US $1.94 for every dollar spent in the CCP compared with ACM. The net present value of the CCP versus ACM, i.e., the amount of money saved by implementing the CCP rather than ACM, is US $861,507 (the benefits of CCP [prevented losses which would have occurred under ACM] minus the cost of CCP). The vaccination programme yields a return of US $2.32 for every dollar spent when compared with the CCR The net present value of vaccination versus the CCP is approximately US $12 million. Sensitivity analysis indicated thatthe findings were robust to different rates of discounting, whereas results were sensitive to the assumed market loss and the number of birds affected in the outbreaks under the ACM and vaccination options. Overall, the findings of the study indicate that the CCP is economically superior to ACM, but that vaccination could give greater economic returns and may be a better control strategy. Future research should be directed towards evaluating the financial feasibility and social acceptability of the CCP and of vaccination, with an emphasis on evaluating market reaction to the presence of H5N1 infection in the country.
PMID: 27044153 [PubMed - in process]
[h=1]Cost-benefit analysis of avian influenza control in Nepal.[/h] Karki S, Lupiani B, Budke CM, Karki NP, Rushton J, Ivanek R.
[h=3]Abstract[/h] Numerous outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza A strain H5N1 have occurred in Nepal since 2009 despite implementation of a national programme to control the disease through surveillance and culling of infected poultry flocks. The objective of the study was to use cost-benefit analysis to compare the current control programme (CCP) with the possible alternatives of: i) no intervention (i.e., absence of control measures [ACM]) and ii) vaccinating 60% of the national poultry flock twice a year. In terms of the benefit-cost ratio, findings indicate a return of US $1.94 for every dollar spent in the CCP compared with ACM. The net present value of the CCP versus ACM, i.e., the amount of money saved by implementing the CCP rather than ACM, is US $861,507 (the benefits of CCP [prevented losses which would have occurred under ACM] minus the cost of CCP). The vaccination programme yields a return of US $2.32 for every dollar spent when compared with the CCR The net present value of vaccination versus the CCP is approximately US $12 million. Sensitivity analysis indicated thatthe findings were robust to different rates of discounting, whereas results were sensitive to the assumed market loss and the number of birds affected in the outbreaks under the ACM and vaccination options. Overall, the findings of the study indicate that the CCP is economically superior to ACM, but that vaccination could give greater economic returns and may be a better control strategy. Future research should be directed towards evaluating the financial feasibility and social acceptability of the CCP and of vaccination, with an emphasis on evaluating market reaction to the presence of H5N1 infection in the country.
PMID: 27044153 [PubMed - in process]