Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Economics of zoonoses surveillance in a ‘One Health’ context: an assessment of Campylobacter surveillance in Switzerland

  • S. BABO MARTINS (a1) (a2), J. RUSHTON (a1) and K. D. C. STÄRK (a1) (a2)
Summary

Cross-sectorial surveillance and general collaboration between the animal and the public health sectors are increasingly recognized as needed to better manage the impacts of zoonoses. From 2009, the Swiss established a Campylobacter mitigation system that includes human and poultry surveillance data-sharing within a multi-sectorial platform, in a ‘One Health’ approach. The objective of this study was to explore the economics of this cross-sectorial approach, including surveillance and triggered interventions. Costs and benefits of the One Health and of the uni-sectorial approach to Campylobacter surveillance were identified using an economic assessment framework developed earlier. Cost information of surveillance activities and interventions was gathered and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) associated with the disease estimated for 2008 and 2013. In the first 5 years of this One Health approach to Campylobacter mitigation, surveillance contributed with information mainly used to perform risk assessments, monitor trends and shape research efforts on Campylobacter. There was an increase in costs associated with the mitigation activities following integration, due mainly to the allocation of additional resources to research and implementation of poultry surveillance. The overall burden of campylobacteriosis increased by 3·4–8·8% to 1751–2852 DALYs in 2013. In the timing of the analysis, added value associated with this cross-sectorial approach to surveillance of Campylobacter in the country was likely generated through non-measurable benefits such as intellectual capital and social capital.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Author for correspondence: S. Babo Martins, Department of Production and Population Health, Veterinary Epidemiology, Economics and Public Health Group, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield, AL9 7TA, UK. (Email: smartins@rvc.ac.uk)
References
Hide All
1. European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The European Union Summary Report on trends and sources of zoonotic agents and food borne outbreaks in 2011. 2013.
2. Baumgartner, A, Felleisen, R, Gut, C. Campylobacter in Switzerland. Risk factors and measures for dealing with the problem (http://www.blv.admin.ch/themen/04678/04711/04777/05277/index.html?lang=en&download=NHzLpZeg7t,lnp6I0NTU042l2Z6ln1ad1IZn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCFfYF6fGym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A--). Accessed 4 November 2014.
3. Schmutz, C, et al. Inverse trends of Campylobacter and Salmonella in Swiss surveillance data, 1988–2013. Eurosurveillance 2016, 21: pii = 30130.
4. Schmutz, C, et al. Estimating healthcare costs of acute gastroenteritis and human campylobacteriosis in Switzerland. Epidemiology and Infection. Published online: 12 August 2016. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268816001618.
5. Bless, PJ, et al. A tradition and an epidemic: determinants of the campylobacteriosis winter peak in Switzerland. European Journal of Epidemiology 2014; 29: 527537.
6. European Food Safety Authority. Switzerland, the report referred to in Article 9 of Directive 2003/99/EC, Trends and sources of zoonoses and zoonotic agents in humans, foostuffs, animals and in feedingstuffs. 2013.
7. Wei, W, Schüpbach, G, Held, L. Time-series analysis of Campylobacter incidence in Switzerland. Epidemiology and Infection 2014; 143: 19821989.
8. Kittl, S, et al. Source attribution of human Campylobacter isolates by MLST and fla-typing and association of genotypes with quinolone resistance. PLoS ONE 2013, 8: e81796.
9. Zinsstag, J, Waltner-Toews, D, Tanner, M. Theoretical issues of one health. In: Zinsstag, J, Schelling, E, Waltner-Toews, D, Whittaker, M, Tanner, M, eds. One Health - The Theory and Practice of Integrated Health Approaches. Wallingford, UK: CABI, 2015, pp. 1626.
10. World Bank. People, pathogens and our planet, volume 1: towards a one health approach for controlling zoonotic diseases, Report No. 50833-GLB. 2010.
11. Halliday, J, et al. Bringing together emerging and endemic zoonoses surveillance: shared challenges and a common solution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 2012; 367: 28722880.
12. Rabinowitz, P, Scotch, M, Conti, L. Human and animal sentinels for shared health risks. Veterinaria Italiana 2009; 45: 2324.
13. Scotch, M, Odofin, L, Rabinowitz, P. Linkages between animal and human health sentinel data. BMC Veterinary Research 2009; 5: 15.
14. Gubernot, DM, Boyer, BL, Moses, MS. Animals as early detectors of bioevents: veterinary tools and a framework for animal-human integrated zoonotic disease surveillance. Public Health Reports 2008; 123: 300315.
15. Lake, RJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to control Campylobacter in the New Zealand poultry meat food supply. Journal of Food Protection 2013; 76: 11611167.
16. Elliott, J, et al. Analysis of the costs and benefits of setting certain control measures for reduction of Campylobacter in broiler meat at different stages of the food chain – Final Report (http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/salmonella/docs/campylobacter_cost_benefit_analysis_en.pdf). Accessed 21 November 2014.
17. Gellynck, X et al. Economics of reducing Campylobacter at different levels within the Belgian poultry meat chain. Journal of Food Protection 2008; 71: 479485.
18. Babo Martins, S, Rushton, J, Stärk, KDC. Economic assessment of zoonoses surveillance in a ‘One Health’ context: a conceptual framework. Zoonoses and Public Health 2015; 63: 386395.
19. Häsler, B, Howe, KS, Stärk, KD. Conceptualising the technical relationship of animal disease surveillance to intervention and mitigation as a basis for economic analysis. BMC Health Services Research 2011; 11: 225.
20. Stärk, KDC, et al. One Health Surveillance – more than a buzz word? Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2015; 20: 124130.
21. Berezowski, J, et al. Do we need One Health surveillance? One Health Newsletter (http://media.news.health.ufl.edu/misc/egh/OneHealthNewsletter/OHNL_Volume8_Issue1.pdf). Accessed 24 March 2016.
22. Swiss Federal Statistical Office. Wages and income from employment – detailed data Wage evolution (http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/03/04/blank/data/02.html). Accessed 15 September 2014.
23. European Food Safety Authority. Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in broiler meat production: control options and performance objectives and/or targets at different stages of the food chain. EFSA Journal 2011; 9: 1141.
24. Toljander, J, et al. Public health burden due to infections by verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) and Campylobacter spp. as estimated by cost of illness and different approaches to model disability-adjusted life years. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 2012; 40: 294302.
25. Mangen, MJJ, et al. The costs of human Campylobacter infections and sequelae in the Netherlands: a DALY and cost-of-illness approach. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C – Food Economics 2005; 2: 3551.
26. Wagenaar, JA, et al. Campylobacter: animal reservoirs, human infections and options for control. In: Singer, A, ed. Zoonoses – Infections Affecting Humans and Animals: Focus on Public Health Aspects, pp. 159177. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2014.
27. Murray, CJL, Lopez, AD (eds). Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.
28. Pires, SM. Burden of disease of foodborne pathogens in Denmark – Technical Report (http://www.food.dtu.dk/english/~/media/Institutter/Foedevareinstituttet/Publikationer/Pub-2014/Burden-of-Disease-of-Foodborne-Pathogens-in-Denmark.ashx?la=da). Accessed 3 March 2015.
29. Tam, CC, et al. Longitudinal study of infectious intestinal disease in the UK (IID2 study): incidence in the community and presenting to general practice. Gut 2012; 61: 6977.
30. Salomon, JA, et al. Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380: 21292143.
31. Swiss Federal Statistical Office. Components of population change – data, indicators, life expectancy (http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/06/blank/key/04/04.html). Accessed 10 October 2014.
32. Helms, M, et al. Short and long term mortality associated with foodborne bacterial gastrointestinal infections: registry based study. British Medical Journal 2003; 326: 357.
33. Havelaar, AH, et al. Disease burden of foodborne pathogens in the Netherlands, 2009. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2012; 156: 231238.
34. Haagsma, JA, et al. Disease burden of post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome in The Netherlands. Epidemiology and Infection 2010; 138: 16501656.
35. Havelaar, AH, et al. Health burden in the Netherlands due to infection with thermophilic Campylobacter spp. Epidemiology and Infection 2000; 125: 505522.
36. Melse, JM, Kramers, PGN. Calculation of the burden of disease in The Netherlands. Background document to PHSF (Public Health Survey of the Future) 1997, Part III, Chapter 7. Report no. 431 501 028, 1998.
37. Mangen, MJJ, Havelaar, AH, de Wit, G. Campylobacteriosis and sequelae in the Netherlands – estimating the disease burden and the costs-of-illness. RIVM Report 250911004 (http://www.rivm.nl/en/Documents_and_publications/Scientific/Reports/2004/mei/Campylobacteriosis_and_sequelae_in_the_Netherlands_Estimating_the_disease_burden_and_the_costs_of_illness?sp=cml2bXE9ZmFsc2U7c2VhcmNoYmFzZT0yMjc2MDtyaXZtcT1mYWxzZTs=&pagenr=2277). Accessed 14 June 2015.
38. Devleesschauwer, B, et al. DALY calculator – a GUI for stochastic DALY calculation in R. R package version 1.2 (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DALY/index.html). Accessed 9 September 2014.
39. Fazlagic, A. Measuring the intellectual capital of a university (https://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/35322785.pdf). Accessed 3 October 2015.
40. Hammerum, AM, et al. Danish integrated antimicrobial resistance monitoring and research program. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2007; 13: 16321639.
41. Wagenaar, JA, French, NP, Havelaar, AH. Preventing Campylobacter at the source: why is it so difficult?. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2013; 57: 16001606.
42. World Health Organization. The global view of campylobacteriosis: report of an expert consultation, Utrecht, Netherlands, 9–11 July 2012 (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/80751/1/9789241564601_eng.pdf). Accessed 20 October 2014.
43. Häsler, B, et al. The economic value of One Health in relation to the mitigation of zoonotic disease risks. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology 2013; 365: 127151.
44. Häsler, B, et al. A review of the metrics for One Health benefits. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties 2014; 33: 453464.
45. Wilson, SJ, Ward, MP, Garner, MG. A framework for assessing the intangible impacts of emergency animal disease. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2013; 111: 194199.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Epidemiology & Infection
  • ISSN: 0950-2688
  • EISSN: 1469-4409
  • URL: /core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed