Cost-benefit analysis of avian influenza control in Nepal

被引:7
|
作者
Karki, S. [1 ,4 ]
Lupiani, B. [2 ]
Budke, C. M. [1 ]
Karki, N. P. S.
Rushton, J. [3 ]
Ivanek, R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Texas A&M Univ, Coll Vet Med & Biomed Sci, Dept Vet Integrat Biosci, College Stn, TX USA
[2] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Vet Pathobiol, Coll Vet Med & Biomed Sci, College Stn, TX USA
[3] Royal Vet Coll, Dept Prod & Populat Hlth, Hatfield AL9 7TA, Herts, England
[4] Dept Livestock Serv, Hariharbhawan, Lalitpur, Nepal
关键词
Avian influenza; Control programme; Cost-benefit analysis; Economic assessment; Nepal; Vaccination; VIRUS H5N1; VACCINATION; LIVESTOCK; HEALTH;
D O I
10.20506/rst.34.3.2397
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
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: 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 CCP. The net present value of vaccination versus the CCP is approximately US$12 million. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the 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.
引用
收藏
页码:813 / 827
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Community Forest in Nepal
    Anup, K. C.
    Koirala, Indra
    Adhikari, Naveen
    JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY, 2015, 34 (03) : 199 - 213
  • [2] Cost-Benefit Analysis and Crime Control
    Riccardi, Michele
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL ON CRIMINAL POLICY AND RESEARCH, 2012, 18 (02) : 235 - 237
  • [3] Influenza control in Australian prison settings: Cost-benefit analysis of major strategies
    Awofeso, Niyi
    Rawlinson, William D.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH, 2005, 1 (01) : 31 - +
  • [4] Cost-benefit analysis of FMD control strategies
    不详
    VETERINARY RECORD, 2004, 154 (06) : 158 - 158
  • [5] Cost-benefit analysis of quality control in UK
    McKenzie, A
    Briggs, G
    Buchanan, R
    Harvey, L
    Iles, A
    Kirby, M
    Mayles, P
    Thomas, S
    Williams, M
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2005, 76 : S33 - S33
  • [6] Cost-benefit analysis in railway noise control
    Oertli, J
    JOURNAL OF SOUND AND VIBRATION, 2000, 231 (03) : 505 - 509
  • [7] A worksite influenza vaccination program in Russia: A cost-benefit analysis
    Atkov, O.
    Loguinov, A.
    Nicoloyannis, N.
    Durand, L.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2007, 10 (06) : A436 - A436
  • [8] Influenza vaccination among healthy employees: A cost-benefit analysis
    Kumpulainen, V
    Makela, M
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 1997, 29 (02) : 181 - 185
  • [9] Cost-benefit analysis
    Miura, Grant
    NATURE CHEMICAL BIOLOGY, 2018, 14 (10) : 903 - 903
  • [10] COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    BJORNSTAD, P
    KJEMI, 1975, 35 (10): : 3 - 3