IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v16y2018i2d10.1007_s40258-017-0369-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost of Illness for Five Major Foodborne Illnesses and Sequelae in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Kristian Sundström

    (AgriFood Economics Centre, Lund University)

Abstract

Objectives The main objective of this study was to derive cost estimates of five major foodborne illnesses (campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC), yersiniosis and shigellosis) in Sweden. These estimates provide a necessary contribution to perform future cost-benefit analyses aimed at reducing the burden of foodborne disease. A secondary aim was to obtain estimates of the true number of cases that occur in the community, thus providing necessary ground for calculating costs. Methods The true number of cases for each foodborne illness was simulated by multiplying the reported number of cases by sequential multipliers, one for each potential source of information loss about a case. This assessment of the true number of cases was then used to estimate the number of cases of sequelae for each illness. An incidence-based analysis was then used to calculate direct medical and non-medical costs, as well as indirect costs. Data for estimating the true number of cases for each illness were primarily based on an expert panel, while the derivation of costs mainly utilized national registries, databases and published literature. Results The estimated number of cases was between 7- and 11-fold higher than the reported number of cases, indicating the importance of taking information loss into account when calculating costs. By far the most common pathogen of the five was campylobacter, with an estimated 101,719 (90% credibility interval [CI] 59,640–158,025) human cases occurring annually. For salmonella, 19,678 (90% CI 8394–40,456) cases were estimated to occur each year, while the other three pathogens were less common, with a yearly incidence of approximately 2500–5500 cases each. The total cost for the five pathogens (including sequelae) amounted to €142 million annually. Campylobacter was the most costly pathogen, representing 69% of the total costs. Salmonellosis and EHEC constituted 18 and 9% of these costs, respectively, while yersiniosis and shigellosis represented approximately 2% each. Costs for sequelae were significant and accounted for approximately 50% of the total costs. Conclusions Our simulations indicated that campylobacter infection was more common and more costly than salmonella, EHEC, yersinia and shigella combined. Estimated costs for all illnesses were highly influenced by (1) considering potential information losses about cases in the population (which increased costs 7- to 11-fold), and (2) taking account of post-infection sequelae (which doubled the costs).

Suggested Citation

  • Kristian Sundström, 2018. "Cost of Illness for Five Major Foodborne Illnesses and Sequelae in Sweden," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 243-257, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0369-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-017-0369-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-017-0369-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-017-0369-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hughes, G. & Lovei, M., 1999. "Economic Reform and Environmental Performance in Transition Economies," Papers 446, World Bank - Technical Papers.
    2. Kuchler, Fred & Golan, Elise H., 1999. "Assigning Values To Life: Comparing Methods For Valuing Health Risks," Agricultural Economic Reports 34037, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Spencer Henson, 1996. "Consumer Willingness To Pay For Reductions In The Risk Of Food Poisoning In The Uk," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 403-420, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    2. Maijala, Riitta & Peltola, Jukka, 2002. "Finnish Salmonella Control Program -- Efficiency and Viability in Food Safety Promotion," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24793, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Cao, Kay & Gibson, John & Scrimgeour, Frank G., 2005. "An Experimental Approach To Estimating Willingess-Topay For Improvements In Food Safety," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137802, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    5. Éric Cahuzac & Daniel Hassan & Sylvette Monier-Dilhan, 2007. "Sécurité sanitaire des aliments : fausse alerte et vraie crise," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(1), pages 55-64.
    6. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 2004. "Risk Valuation in the Presence of Risky Substitutes: An Application to Demand for Seafood," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Ivanek, Renata & Grohn, Yrjo T. & Tauer, Loren W. & Wiedmann, Martin, 2003. "The Cost and Benefit of Listeria Monocytogenes Food Safety Measures," Working Papers 127249, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    8. The Anh Phan & Phuong Hoang Mai, 2016. "Determinants Impacting Consumers¡¯ Purchase Intention: The Case of Fast Food in Vietnam," International Journal of Marketing Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(5), pages 56-68, October.
    9. Spencer Henson & Bruce Traill, 2000. "Measuring Perceived Performance of the Food System and Consumer Food‐Related Welfare," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 388-404, September.
    10. Kuchler, Fred & Ballenger, Nicole, 2002. "Societal Costs of Obesity: How Can We Assess When Federal Interventions Will Pay?," Food Review/ National Food Review, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 25(3), pages 1-5.
    11. Giovanni Anania & Rosanna Nisticò, 2004. "Public Regulation as a Substitute for Trust in Quality Food Markets: What if the Trust Substitute cannot be Fully Trusted?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(4), pages 681-701, December.
    12. Latvala, Terhi & Kola, Jukka, 2002. "Demand for and Value of Credence Characteristics: Case Beef," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24841, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Krystallis, Athanasios & Ness, Mitchell, 2005. "Consumer Preferences for Quality Foods from a South European Perspective: A Conjoint Analysis Implementation on Greek Olive Oil," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-30.
    14. Crutchfield, Stephen R. & Kuchler, Fred & Variyam, Jayachandran N., 2001. "Valuing The Health Benefits Of Nutrition Labeling: A Case Study For Meat And Poultry Products," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20559, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Mark Agee & Thomas Crocker, 2008. "Does parents’ valuation of children’s health mimic their valuation of own health?," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 21(1), pages 231-249, January.
    16. Ragona, Maddalena & Mazzocchi, Mario, 2008. "Measuring the Impacts of Food Safety Regulations: A Methodological Review," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43864, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Buzby, Jean C. & Fox, John A. & Ready, Richard C. & Crutchfield, Stephen R., 1998. "Measuring Consumer Benefits Of Food Safety Risk Reductions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-14, July.
    18. Chris Dockins & Robin R. Jenkins & Nicole Owens & Nathalie B. Simon & Lanelle Bembenek Wiggins, 2002. "Valuation of Childhood Risk Reduction: The Importance of Age, Risk Preferences, and Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 335-346, April.
    19. Loren W. Tauer & Cameron Nightingale & Renata Ivanek & Yrjö T. Gröhn & Martin Wiedmann, 2007. "Optimal levels of inputs to control Listeria monocytogenes contamination at a smoked fish plant," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 229-244.
    20. Karanfil, Fatih & Omgba, Luc Désiré, 2019. "Do the IMF’s structural adjustment programs help reduce energy consumption and carbon intensity? Evidence from developing countries," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 312-323.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0369-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.