Skip to main content
. 2019 May 9;24(7):788–816. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13241

Table 3.

Summary of the estimated economic benefits of onchocerciasis interventions relating to productivity gains and land gains

Source Setting and time period of the intervention Time horizon for the benefits Cost year Value of the productivity gainsb Value of land gains
Benton & Skinner 67 OCP (1974–2004) 1974–2023 1985 US$

  • US$91 million (10% discount rate) to US$338 million (5% discount rate).

  • Assumed that blindness results in complete loss of productivity.

  • The productivity gains were valued at a subsistence wage of US$150 per year.

  • US$57 million (10% discount rate) to US$205 million (5% discount rate).

  • Assumed 15 million hectares of new land made available.

  • Assumed that new land would be settled at a rate of 3% per year, beginning five years after the programme started in the relevant area.
Kim & Benton 58 OCP (1974–2002) 1974–2012 1987 US$

  • Values not stated.

  • Assumed that each case of blindness averted results in 20 years of productive life gained.

  • Assumed 85% labour force participationc.

  • The productivity gains were valued based on the ‘Agriculture value‐added factor cost’ statistic.

  • Values not stated (but land related benefits accounted for the majority of the study's estimated economic benefits).

  • Assumed 25 million hectares of new land made available.

  • Assumed 85% agricultural outputc and that new land utilisation would follow an S‐Curve pattern beginning after eight years of OCP intervention.
McFarland & Murray 124, a OCP (10‐year project time period) 1974–2023 Not available

  • US$75 million annually (unclear if discounted).

  • The productivity gains were valued assuming annual wages of US$150.

  • US$205 million (5% discount rate).

  • Details not available.
Benton 125 APOC (1996–2007) 1996–2017 1996 US$

  • Values not stated.

  • The productivity gains for each case of blindness prevented were valued at US$150 (unclear if this is the total per case or per productive year).

 ‐
Haddix 69, a APOC (1996–2007) 1996–2017 1996 US$

  • Values not available.

  • Details not available.

  • Values not available.

  • Measured as the increase in agricultural output made available by increased productive labour.

  • Details not available.
Kim et al. 60, d , e Potential benefits of achieving elimination scenarios in Africa 2013–2045 2013 US$

  • Compared with the control scenario, the Elim I and II scenariose would generate US$5.9 (2.5–7.2) billion and US$6.4 (2.8–8.0) billion in productivity gains respectively (3% discount rate).

  • The productivity gains were valued based on the GDP per capita and were adjusted for employment rates.

 ‐
Redekop et al. 59 Potential economic benefits of achieving the WHO 2020 targets 2011–2030 2005 US$

  • US$3.3 (2.4–5.11) billion (3% discount rate).

  • 22% due to averted skin disease and 78% from averted visual morbidity).

  • The productivity gains were valued based on the GDP per capita of the lowest income quintilec.

 ‐

APOC, African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control; GDP, gross domestic product; OCP, Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa.

a

Information for this study was taken from Waters et al. 18.

b

Further detail regarding how the productivity gains were calculated are provided in Table 5.

c

Assumption varied in the sensitivity analysis.

d

Also quantified the savings to the health systems and households (out‐of‐pocket payments) resulting from decreased usage of outpatient health services (Elim I: US$60.6 (30–80.7) million, Elim II: US$64.6 (31.8–86.4) million ‐ compared with the control scenario).

e

The Control, Elim I and Elim II scenarios are described in Kim et al. 99.