Explore the vast range of titles available.

Safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) are fundamental to an improved standard of living. Globally, 91% of households used improved drinking water sources in 2015, while for improved sanitation it is 68%. Wealth disparities are stark, with rural populations, slum dwellers and marginalized groups lagging significantly behind. Service coverage is significantly lower when considering the new water and sanitation targets under the sustainable development goals (SDGs) which aspire to a higher standard of ‘safely managed’ water and sanitation. Lack of access to WASH can have an economic impact as much as 7% of Gross Domestic Product, not including the social and environmental consequences. Research points to significant health and socio-economic consequences of poor nutritional status, child growth and school performance caused by inadequate WASH. Groundwater over-extraction and pollution of surface water bodies have serious impacts on water resource availability and biodiversity, while climate change exacerbates the health risks of water insecurity. A significant literature documents the beneficial impacts of WASH interventions, and a growing number of impact evaluation studies assess how interventions are optimally financed, implemented and sustained. Many innovations in behavior change and service delivery offer potential for scaling up services to meet the SDGs.

Economic evidence on the cost and benefits of sanitation and drinking-water supply supports higher allocation of resources and selection of efficient and affordable interventions. The study aim is to estimate global and regional costs and benefits of sanitation and drinking-water supply interventions to meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target in 2015, as well as to attain universal coverage. Input data on costs and benefits from reviewed literature were combined in an economic model to estimate the costs and benefits, and benefit-cost ratios (BCRs). Benefits included health and access time savings. Global BCRs (Dollar return per Dollar invested) were 5.5 for sanitation, 2.0 for water supply and 4.3 for combined sanitation and water supply. Globally, the costs of universal access amount to US $ 35 billion per year for sanitation and US$17.5 billion for drinking-water, over the 5-year period 2010–2015 (billion defined as 109 here and throughout). The regions accounting for the major share of costs and benefits are South Asia, East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Improved sanitation and drinking-water supply deliver significant economic returns to society, especially sanitation. Economic evidence should further feed into advocacy efforts to raise funding from governments, households and the private sector.

Background In responding to the health challenges of climate change, those responsible for health policies and resource allocations need to know the resource consequences of their decisions. This article examines the availability and strength of economic evidence for policy makers to draw on in making health policy decisions. Methods Relevant literature was obtained using a Medline and INTERNET search of key terms and institutions working in health and climate change. Eighteen available economic studies are presented under three categories of economic evidence: health damage cost, health adaptation cost and health economic evaluation. Results In economic studies valuing the predicted increased mortality from climate change, the health damages represent an important fraction of overall economic losses. Similarly, when considering broader health protection measures beyond the health sector (e.g. agriculture, water supply) health considerations are central. Global adaptation cost studies carried out so far indicate health sector costs of roughly US$2-5 billion annually (mid-estimates). However, these costs are expected to be an underestimate of the true costs, due to omitted health impacts, omitted economic impacts, and the costs of health actions in other sectors. No published studies compare the costs and benefits of specific health interventions to protect health from climate change. Conclusions More economic studies are needed examining the costs and benefits of adaptation measures to inform policy making. There is an urgent need for climate change-specific health economic guidelines to ensure robust methods are used, giving comparable results. Broader advocacy and focused training of decision makers is needed to increase the uptake of economic evidence in decision making. Until further climate change-specific economic studies have been conducted, decision makers should selectively draw on published studies of the costs and benefits of environmental health interventions.

The aim of this study was to estimate the economic benefits and costs of a range of interventions to improve access to water supply and sanitation facilities in the developing world. Results are presented for eleven developing country WHO sub-regions as well as at the global level, in United States Dollars (US $) for the year 2000. Five different types of water supply and sanitation improvement were modelled: achieving the water millennium development goal of reducing by half in 2015 those without improved water supply in the year 1990; achieving the combined water supply and sanitation MDG; universal basic access to water supply and sanitation; universal basic access plus water purification at the point-of-use; and regulated piped water supply and sewer connection. Predicted reductions in the incidence of diarrhoeal disease were calculated based on the expected population receiving these interventions. The costs of the interventions included estimations of the full investment and annual running costs. The benefits of the interventions included time savings due to easier access, gain in productive time and reduced health care costs saved due to less illness, and prevented deaths. The results show that all water and sanitation improvements are cost-beneficial in all developing world sub-regions. In developing regions, the return on a US$ 1 investment was in the range US $5 to US$ 46, depending on the intervention. For the least developed regions, investing every US $1 to meet the combined water supply and sanitation MDG lead to a return of at least US$ 5 (AFR-D, AFR-E, SEAR-D) or US$12 (AMR-B; EMR-B; WPR-B). The main contributor to economic benefits was time savings associated with better access to water and sanitation services, contributing at least 80% to overall economic benefits. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that even under pessimistic data assumptions the potential economic benefits outweighed the costs in all developing world regions. Further country case-studies are recommended as a follow up to this global analysis.

Background Recent years have seen an unprecedented increase in funds for procurement of health commodities in developing countries. A major challenge now is the efficient delivery of commodities and services to improve population health. With this in mind, we documented staffing levels and productivity in peripheral health facilities in southern Tanzania. Method A health facility survey was conducted to collect data on staff employed, their main tasks, availability on the day of the survey, reasons for absenteeism, and experience of supervisory visits from District Health Teams. In-depth interview with health workers was done to explore their perception of work load. A time and motion study of nurses in the Reproductive and Child Health (RCH) clinics documented their time use by task. Results We found that only 14% (122/854) of the recommended number of nurses and 20% (90/441) of the clinical staff had been employed at the facilities. Furthermore, 44% of clinical staff was not available on the day of the survey. Various reasons were given for this. Amongst the clinical staff, 38% were absent because of attendance to seminar sessions, 8% because of long-training, 25% were on official travel and 20% were on leave. RCH clinic nurses were present for 7 hours a day, but only worked productively for 57% of time present at facility. Almost two-third of facilities had received less than 3 visits from district health teams during the 6 months preceding the survey. Conclusion This study documented inadequate staffing of health facilities, a high degree of absenteeism, low productivity of the staff who were present and inadequate supervision in peripheral Tanzanian health facilities. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of decentralized health care in Tanzania.

OBJECTIVE: Target 10 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is to \"halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation\". Because of its impacts on a range of diseases, it is a health-related MDG target. This study presents cost estimates of attaining MDG target 10. METHODS: We estimate the population to be covered to attain the MDG target using data on household use of improved water and sanitation for 1990 and 2004, and taking into account population growth. We assume this estimate is achieved in equal annual increments from the base year, 2005, until 2014. Costs per capita for investment and recurrent costs are applied. Country data is aggregated to 11 WHO developing country subregions and globally. FINDINGS: Estimated spending required in developing countries on new coverage to meet the MDG target is US$ 42 billion for water and US$ 142 billion for sanitation, a combined annual equivalent of US$ 18 billion. The cost of maintaining existing services totals an additional US$ 322 billion for water supply and US $216 billion for sanitation, a combined annual equivalent of US$ 54 billion. Spending for new coverage is largely rural (64%), while for maintaining existing coverage it is largely urban (73%). Additional programme costs, incurred administratively outside the point of delivery of interventions, of between 10% and 30% are required for effective implementation. CONCLUSION: In assessing financing requirements, estimates of cost should include the operation, maintenance and replacement of existing coverage as well as new services and programme costs. Country-level costing studies are needed to guide sector financing.

An improved understanding of the sanitation enabling environment and status of market development (“sanitation economy”) is crucial not only for advancing national and global sanitation goals, but also for attracting the financing necessary to drive meaningful progress in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This need is particularly pressing as the sanitation sector faces a significant funding gap that must be bridged to meet the growing demands for sanitation services, infrastructure, and innovation. This paper reviews frameworks that assess the sanitation economy in LMICs with the aim of informing the development of more impactful future frameworks and the wider application of existing frameworks. Frameworks were identified through internet search and interviews with representatives of international sanitation sector organisations and universities. Thirty-nine frameworks were identified that have been or are currently being used in sanitation. Frameworks are diverse in the structure they adopt, their focus areas, the number of indicators, the number of countries covered, the frequency with which they have been applied, their reliance on primary versus secondary data sources, and their uptake and impact. Overall, use of the frameworks has been piecemeal and sporadic in LMICs. Only few frameworks have been picked up and applied by another organisation, although the results of some frameworks are widely used and cited. To ensure future efforts to measure and monitor the sanitation economy are evidence-based and make the best use of limited resources, frameworks currently in use should be independently evaluated and there should be greater collaboration and adoption of common frameworks.

To estimate the economic benefit, cost-effectiveness, and distribution of benefit of improving human health in Mongolia through the control of brucellosis by mass vaccination of livestock. Cost-effectiveness and economic benefit for human society and the agricultural sector of mass vaccination against brucellosis was modelled. The intervention consisted of a planned 10-year livestock mass vaccination campaign using Rev-1 livestock vaccine for small ruminants and S19 livestock vaccine for cattle. Cost-effectiveness, expressed as cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted, was the primary outcome. In a scenario of 52% reduction of brucellosis transmission between animals achieved by mass vaccination, a total of 49,027 DALYs could be averted. Estimated intervention costs were US$ 8.3 million, and the overall benefit was US$ 26.6 million. This results in a net present value of US$ 18.3 million and an average benefit-cost ratio for society of 3.2 (2.27-4.37). If the costs of the intervention were shared between the sectors in proportion to the benefit to each, the public health sector would contribute 11%, which gives a cost-effectiveness of US$ 19.1 per DALY averted (95% confidence interval 5.3-486.8). If private economic gain because of improved human health was included, the health sector should contribute 42% to the intervention costs and the cost-effectiveness would decrease to US$ 71.4 per DALY averted. If the costs of vaccination of livestock against brucellosis were allocated to all sectors in proportion to the benefits, the intervention might be profitable and cost effective for the agricultural and health sectors.

The aim of this study was to estimate the costs and the health benefits of the following interventions: increasing access to improved water supply and sanitation facilities, increasing access to in house piped water and sewerage connection, and providing household water treatment, in ten WHO sub-regions. The cost-effectiveness of each intervention was assessed in terms of US dollars per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted. This analysis found that almost all interventions were cost-effective, especially in developing countries with high mortality rates. The estimated cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) varied between US $20 per DALY averted for disinfection at point of use to US$ 13,000 per DALY averted for improved water and sanitation facilities. While increasing access to piped water supply and sewage connections on plot was the intervention that had the largest health impact across all sub-regions, household water treatment was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. A policy shift to include better household water quality management to complement the continuing expansion of coverage and upgrading of services would appear to be a cost-effective health intervention in many developing countries.

Background In responding to the health impacts of climate change, economic evidence and tools inform decision makers of the efficiency of alternative health policies and interventions. In a time when sweeping budget cuts are affecting all tiers of government, economic evidence on health protection from climate change spending enables comparison with other public spending. Methods The review included 53 countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region. Literature was obtained using a Medline and Internet search of key terms in published reports and peer-reviewed literature, and from institutions working on health and climate change. Articles were included if they provided economic estimation of the health impacts of climate change or adaptation measures to protect health from climate change in the WHO European Region. Economic studies are classified under health impact cost, health adaptation cost, and health economic evaluation (comparing both costs and impacts). Results A total of 40 relevant studies from Europe were identified, covering the health damage or adaptation costs related to the health effects of climate change and response measures to climate-sensitive diseases. No economic evaluation studies were identified of response measures specific to the impacts of climate change. Existing studies vary in terms of the economic outcomes measured and the methods for evaluation of health benefits. The lack of robust health impact data underlying economic studies significantly affects the availability and precision of economic studies. Conclusions Economic evidence in European countries on the costs of and response to climate-sensitive diseases is extremely limited and fragmented. Further studies are urgently needed that examine health impacts and the costs and efficiency of alternative responses to climate-sensitive health conditions, in particular extreme weather events (other than heat) and potential emerging diseases and other conditions threatening Europe.