Economic Evaluation of Environmental Health Interventions to Support Decision Making

Environmental burden of disease represents one quarter of overall disease burden, hence necessitating greater attention from decision makers both inside and outside the health sector. Economic evaluation techniques such as cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis provide key information...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Guy Hutton
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2008-01-01
Series:Environmental Health Insights
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.4137/EHI.S1152
id doaj-d988fccc715a4d6a8161a26ed1431d4d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d988fccc715a4d6a8161a26ed1431d4d2020-11-25T02:37:10ZengSAGE PublishingEnvironmental Health Insights1178-63022008-01-01210.4137/EHI.S1152Economic Evaluation of Environmental Health Interventions to Support Decision MakingGuy Hutton0Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank.Environmental burden of disease represents one quarter of overall disease burden, hence necessitating greater attention from decision makers both inside and outside the health sector. Economic evaluation techniques such as cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis provide key information to health decision makers on the efficiency of environmental health interventions, assisting them in choosing interventions which give the greatest social return on limited public budgets and private resources. The aim of this article is to review economic evaluation studies in three environmental health areas–-water, sanitation, hygiene (WSH), vector control, and air pollution–-and to critically examine the policy relevance and scientific quality of the studies for selecting and funding public programmers. A keyword search of Medline from 1990-2008 revealed 32 studies, and gathering of articles from other sources revealed a further 18 studies, giving a total of 50 economic evaluation studies (13 WSH interventions, 16 vector control and 21 air pollution). Overall, the economic evidence base on environmental health interventions remains relatively weak–-too few studies per intervention, of variable scientific quality and from diverse locations which limits generalisability of findings. Importantly, there still exists a disconnect between economic research, decision making and programmer implementation. This can be explained by the lack of translation of research findings into accessible documentation for policy makers and limited relevance of research findings, and the often low importance of economic evidence in budgeting decisions. These findings underline the importance of involving policy makers in the defining of research agendas and commissioning of research, and improving the awareness of researchers of the policy environment into which their research feeds.https://doi.org/10.4137/EHI.S1152
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Guy Hutton
spellingShingle Guy Hutton
Economic Evaluation of Environmental Health Interventions to Support Decision Making
Environmental Health Insights
author_facet Guy Hutton
author_sort Guy Hutton
title Economic Evaluation of Environmental Health Interventions to Support Decision Making
title_short Economic Evaluation of Environmental Health Interventions to Support Decision Making
title_full Economic Evaluation of Environmental Health Interventions to Support Decision Making
title_fullStr Economic Evaluation of Environmental Health Interventions to Support Decision Making
title_full_unstemmed Economic Evaluation of Environmental Health Interventions to Support Decision Making
title_sort economic evaluation of environmental health interventions to support decision making
publisher SAGE Publishing
series Environmental Health Insights
issn 1178-6302
publishDate 2008-01-01
description Environmental burden of disease represents one quarter of overall disease burden, hence necessitating greater attention from decision makers both inside and outside the health sector. Economic evaluation techniques such as cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis provide key information to health decision makers on the efficiency of environmental health interventions, assisting them in choosing interventions which give the greatest social return on limited public budgets and private resources. The aim of this article is to review economic evaluation studies in three environmental health areas–-water, sanitation, hygiene (WSH), vector control, and air pollution–-and to critically examine the policy relevance and scientific quality of the studies for selecting and funding public programmers. A keyword search of Medline from 1990-2008 revealed 32 studies, and gathering of articles from other sources revealed a further 18 studies, giving a total of 50 economic evaluation studies (13 WSH interventions, 16 vector control and 21 air pollution). Overall, the economic evidence base on environmental health interventions remains relatively weak–-too few studies per intervention, of variable scientific quality and from diverse locations which limits generalisability of findings. Importantly, there still exists a disconnect between economic research, decision making and programmer implementation. This can be explained by the lack of translation of research findings into accessible documentation for policy makers and limited relevance of research findings, and the often low importance of economic evidence in budgeting decisions. These findings underline the importance of involving policy makers in the defining of research agendas and commissioning of research, and improving the awareness of researchers of the policy environment into which their research feeds.
url https://doi.org/10.4137/EHI.S1152
work_keys_str_mv AT guyhutton economicevaluationofenvironmentalhealthinterventionstosupportdecisionmaking
_version_ 1724796318519394304