Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing the Economics of Dengue: Results from a Systematic Review of the Literature and Expert Survey

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The economics of dengue is complex and multifaceted.

Objectives

We performed a systematic review of the literature to provide a critical overview of the issues related to dengue economics research and to form a background with which to address the question of cost.

Methods

Three literature databases were searched [PubMed, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS)], covering a period from 1980 to 2013, to identify papers meeting preset inclusion criteria. Studies were reviewed for methodological quality on the basis of a quality checklist developed for this purpose. An expert survey was designed to identify priority areas in dengue economics research and to identify gaps between the methodology and actual practice. Survey responses were combined with the literature review findings to determine stakeholder priorities in dengue economics research.

Results

The review identified over 700 papers. Forty-two of these papers met the selection criteria. The studies that were reviewed presented results from 32 dengue-endemic countries, underscoring the importance of dengue as a global public health problem. Cost analyses were the most common, with 21 papers, followed by nine cost-effectiveness analyses and seven cost-of-illness studies, indicating a relatively strong mix of methodologies. Dengue annual overall costs (in 2010 values) ranged from US$13.5 million (in Nicaragua) to $56 million (in Malaysia), showing cost variations across countries. Little consistency exists in the way costs were estimated and dengue interventions evaluated, making generalizations around costs difficult.

Conclusions

The current evidence suggests that dengue costs are substantial because of the cost of hospital care and lost earnings. Further research in this area will broaden our understanding of the true economic impact of dengue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013;496:504–7. doi:10.1038/nature12060.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brady OJ, Gething PW, Bhatt S, Messina JP, Brownstein JS, Hoen AG, et al. Refining the global spatial limits of dengue virus transmission by evidence-based consensus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1760. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Capeding MR, Tran NH, Hadinegaro SR et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of a novel tetravalent dengue vaccine in healthy children in Asia: a phase 3, randomized, observer-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2014;384(9951):1358–65. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61060-6.

  4. Villar L, Dayan GH, Arredondo-Garcia JL, Rivera DM, Cunha R, Deseda C, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of a novel tetravalent dengue vaccine in healthy children and adolescents in aged 9 to 16 years in Latin America. N Engl J Med. 2014;. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1411037.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Constenla D, Lefcourt N, Garcia C. Expert Panel on Developing Guidelines for the Estimation of Costs of Dengue in the Latin American and Caribbean Region. In: Proceedings of the workshop on developing regional guidelines of costs of dengue with a focus on the Latin America and Caribbean Region. Available from: http://www.denguevaccines.org/sites/default/files/Proceedings%20Guidelines%20Workshop.pdf. Accessed 11 Aug 2014.

  6. Constenla D, Lefcourt N, Garcia C. Expert consensus-building for developing guidelines: lessons learned from a dengue economics workshop. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2013;34(3):198–203.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Luz PM, Grinsztejn B, Galvani AP. Disability adjusted life years lost to dengue in Brazil. Trop Med Int Health. 2009;14(2):237–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cho-Min N. Assessment of dengue hemorrhagic fever in Myanmar. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2000;31(4):636–41.

  9. Meltzer MI, Rigau-Perez JG, Clark GG, Reiter P, Gubler DJ. Using disability-adjusted life years to assess the economic impact of dengue in Puerto Rico: 1984–1994. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998;59(2):265–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ditsuwan T, Liabsuetrakul T, Ditsuwan V, Thammapalo S. Feasibility of ultra-low-volume indoor space spraying for dengue control in Southern Thailand. Trop Med Int Health. 2013;18(2):230–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Orellano PW, Pedroni E. Cost-benefit analysis of vector control in areas of potential dengue transmission. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2008;24(2):113–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shepard DS, Suaya JA, Halstead SB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a pediatric dengue vaccine. Vaccine. 2004;22(9–10):1275–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carrasco LR, Lee LK, Lee VJ, et al. Economic impact of dengue illness and the cost-effectiveness of future vaccination programs in Singapore. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(12):e1426.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee BY, Connor DL, Kitchen SB, et al. Economic value of dengue vaccine in Thailand. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;84(5):764–72.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Durham DP, Ndeffo Mbah ML, Medlock J, et al. Dengue dynamics and vaccine cost-effectiveness in Brazil. Vaccine. 2013;31(37):3957–61.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mahoney RT, Francis DP, Frazatti-Gallina NM, Precioso AR, Raw I, Watler P, Whitehead P, Whitehead SS. Cost of production of live attenuated dengue vaccines: a case study of the Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Vaccine. 2012;30(32):4892–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Luz PM, Vanni T, Medlock J, Paltiel AD, Galvani AP. Dengue vector control strategies in an urban setting: an economic modelling assessment. Lancet. 2011;377(9778):1673–80.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Suaya JA, Shepard DS, Chang MS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of annual targeted larviciding campaigns in Cambodia against the dengue vector Aedes aegypti. Trop Med Int Health. 2007;12(9):1026–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shepard DS, Undurraga EA, Lees RS, Halasa Y, Lum LC, Ng CW. Use of multiple data sources to estimate the economic cost of dengue illness in Malaysia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;87(5):796–805.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Armien B, Suaya JA, Quiroz E, et al. Clinical characteristics and national economic cost of the 2005 dengue epidemic in Panama. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;79(3):364–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wettstein ZS, Fleming M, Chang AY, et al. Total economic cost and burden of dengue in Nicaragua: 1996–2010. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;87(4):616–22.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Halasa YA, Shepard DS, Zeng W. Economic cost of dengue in Puerto Rico. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86(5):745–52.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Beaute J, Vong S. Cost and disease burden of dengue in Cambodia. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:521.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baly A, Toledo ME, Rodriguez K, et al. Costs of dengue prevention and incremental cost of dengue outbreak control in Guantanamo, Cuba. Trop Med Int Health. 2012;17(1):123–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guzman MG, Triana C, Bravo J, Kouri G. The estimation of the economic damages caused as a consequence of the epidemic of hemorrhagic dengue in Cuba in 1981. Rev Cubana Med Trop. 1992;44(1):13–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Clark DV, Mammen MP Jr, Nisalak A, Puthimethee V, Endy TP. Economic impact of dengue fever/dengue hemorrhagic fever in Thailand at the family and population levels. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005;72(6):786–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Harving ML, Ronsholt FF. The economic impact of dengue hemorrhagic fever on family level in Southern Vietnam. Dan Med Bull. 2007;54(2):170–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Huy R, Wichmann O, Beatty M, et al. Cost of dengue and other febrile illnesses to households in rural Cambodia: a prospective community-based case-control study. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:155.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tam PT, Dat NT, le Huu M, et al. High household economic burden caused by hospitalization of patients with severe dengue fever cases in Can Tho province, Vietnam. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;87(3):554–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Damme W, Van Leemput L, Por I, Hardeman W, Meessen B. Out-of-pocket health expenditure and debt in poor households: evidence from Cambodia. Trop Med Int Health. 2004;9(2):273–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Torres MI. Impact of an outbreak of dengue fever: a case study from rural Puerto Rico. Hum Organ. 1997;56(1):19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Baly A, Toledo ME, Boelaert M, et al. Cost effectiveness of Aedes aegypti control programmes: participatory versus vertical. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2007;101(6):578–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Taliberti H, Zucchi P. Direct costs of the dengue fever control and prevention program in 2005 in the city of Sao Paulo. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2010;27(3):175–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Valdes LG, Mizhrahi JV, Guzman MG. Economic impact of dengue 2 epidemic in Santiago de Cuba, 1997. Rev Cubana Med Trop. 2002;54(3):220–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Okanurak K, Sornmani S, Indaratna K. The cost of dengue hemorrhagic fever in Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1997;28(4):711–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ditsuwan T, Liabsuetrakul T, Ditsuwan V, Thammapalo S. Cost of standard indoor ultra-low-volume space spraying as a method to control adult dengue vectors. Trop Med Int Health. 2012;17(6):767–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tarragona S, Monteverde M, Marchioni S, Caporale J, Pereiro AC, Palacios JM. Dengue in Argentina: an economic analysis of the impact of the 2009 epidemic. Salud colectiva. 2012;8(2):151–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Baly A, Flessa S, Cote M, et al. The cost of routine Aedes aegypti control and of insecticide-treated curtain implementation. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;84(5):747–52.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Stahl HC, Butenschoen VM, Tran HT, et al. Cost of dengue outbreaks: literature review and country case studies. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1048.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Von Allmen SD, Lopez-Correa RH, Woodall JP, Morens DM, Chiriboga J, Casta-Velez A. Epidemic dengue fever in Puerto Rico, 1977: a cost analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1979;28(6):1040–4.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Anderson KB, Chunsuttiwat S, Nisalak A, et al. Burden of symptomatic dengue infection in children at primary school in Thailand: a prospective study. Lancet. 2007;369(9571):1452–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pepin KM, Marques-Toledo C, Scherer L, Morais MM, Ellis B, Eiras AE. Cost-effectiveness of novel system of mosquito surveillance and control, Brazil. Emerging infectious diseases. 2013;19(4):542–50.

  43. Anez G, Balza R, Valero N, Larreal Y. Economic impact of dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever in the state of Zulia, Venezuela, 1997–2003. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2006;19(5):314–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Garg P, Nagpal J, Khairnar P, Seneviratne SL. Economic burden of dengue infections in India. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008;102(6):570–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Suaya JA, Shepard DS, Siqueira JB, et al. Cost of dengue cases in eight countries in the Americas and Asia: a prospective study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009;80(5):846–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Shepard DS, Coudeville L, Halasa YA, Zambrano B, Dayan GH. Economic impact of dengue illness in the Americas. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;84(2):200–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Shepard DS, Undurraga EA, Halasa YA. Economic and disease burden of dengue in Southeast Asia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(2):e2055.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. McConnell KJ, Gubler DJ. Guidelines on the cost-effectiveness of larval control programs to reduce dengue transmission in Puerto Rico. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2003;14(1):9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contributions

DC is the overall guarantor for the study. DC guided the design of this review and the survey. CG and DC developed the search methodology and created the data abstraction sheets and the survey. CG and NL conducted the searches and abstracted the data, removed the duplicates, and screened and selected the studies, with the support of DC. DC drafted the article and created the tables and figures with support from CG and NL.

Acknowledgments

JHU’s IVAC received a sponsored grant from the Pan-American Health and Education Foundation (PAHEF), which was primarily funded by Sanofi Pasteur. JHU’s IVAC is a consortium member of the Dengue Vaccine Initiative (DVI). The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the other DVI consortium members. We thank the following experts, who formed part of the Costing Dengue Working Group, for their contributions in completing the survey, attending the workshop and assisting in the development of the costing guidelines. These include B. Armien from Instituto Conmemorativo Gorgas de Estudios de la Salud, Panama; J. Arredondo from the Secretary of Health, Vector Borne Diseases Control Division, Mexico; M. Carabali from the DVI, Colombia Office; G. Carrasquilla from the Centro de Estudios e Investigación en Salud (CEIS), Colombia; R. Castro from the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia; L. Durand from Sanofi Pasteur, France; L. Durán from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico; M.E. García from the Health Services Management, Mexico; V. Gallegos from the National Center for Health Technology Excellence, Ministry of Health, Mexico; M. Gontes from the Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública (INSP), Mexico; J. G. López from Sanofi Pasteur, Latin America; C. McFarlane from the Ministry of Health, Jamaica; R. Montoya from the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), El Salvador; A. M. C. Sartori from the Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil; J. B. Siqueira from the Universidade Federal de Goiás, Brazil; and C. Martelli from the Universidade Federal de Goiás, Brazil and Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil. We also thank PAHEF for providing communications and administrative oversight of the workshop. We are grateful to various members of the DVI, including Drs. Orin Levine, Brian Maskery, Richard Mahoney and Luiz da Silva, for either attending the workshop as observers or for providing feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. We are indebted to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for their financial contribution to the DVI. The current paper would not have been possible if the lead author of this paper had not been a member of the DVI receiving funding from Gates.

Conflicts of interest

DC, GC and NL declare no conflicts of interest in conducting this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dagna Constenla.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Example of MeSH Search Terms for PubMed

Search Group 1: Organism, Morbidity and Mortality

(“Dengue” [MeSH] OR “Dengue” [all fields] OR “Classical Dengue Fever” [all fields] OR “Classical Dengue Fevers” [all fields] OR “Dengue Fever” [all fields] OR “Dengue Fevers” [all fields] OR “dengue virus” [all fields] OR “dengue vaccine” [all fields] OR “dengue vaccines” [all fields] OR “dengue virus vaccine” [all fields] OR “dengue virus vaccines” [all fields] OR “dengue fever virus” [all fields] OR “dengue flavivirus” [all fields] OR “Aden fever” [all fields] OR “Aden fevers” [all fields] OR “Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever” [MeSH] OR “Dengue Hemorrhagic Fevers” [all fields] OR “Bangkok hemorrhagic fever” [all fields] OR “Bangkok hemorrhagic fevers” [all fields] OR “bouquet fever” [all fields] OR “bouquet fevers” [all fields] OR “dengue shock syndrome” [all fields] OR “dengue shock syndromes” [all fields] OR “breakbone” [all fields] OR “breakbone fever” [all fields] OR dandy [all fields] OR “dandy fever” [all fields] OR “dandy fevers” [all fields] OR “dengue hemorrhagic fever” [all fields] OR “hemorrhagic fevers” [all fields] OR “dengue shock syndrome” [all fields] OR “Philippine hemorrhagic fever” [all fields] OR “Singapore hemorrhagic fever” [all fields] OR “Singapore hemorrhagic fevers” [all fields] OR “Thai hemorrhagic fever” [all fields] OR “Thai hemorrhagic fevers” [all fields] OR “hemorrhagic dengue” [all fields] OR “hemorrhagic dengues” [all fields ]OR “red fever” [all fields] OR “red fevers” [all fields] OR “solar fever” [all fields] OR “sun fever” [all fields] OR “solar fevers” [all fields] OR “sun fevers” [all fields] OR DENV [all fields] OR DENV-1 [all fields] OR DENV1 [all fields] OR “dengue 1 virus” [all fields] OR “dengue virus type 1” [all fields] OR “DENV-2” [all fields] OR DENV2 [all fields] OR “dengue 2 virus” [all fields] OR “dengue virus type 2” [all fields] OR DENV-3 [all fields] OR DENV3 [all fields] OR “dengue 3 virus” [all fields] OR “dengue virus type 3” [all fields] OR DENV-4 [all fields] OR DENV4 [all fields] OR “dengue 4 virus” [all fields] OR “dengue virus type 4” [all fields]

Search Group 2: Region

(“Latin America” [MeSH] OR “Latin America” [all fields] OR “Central America” [all fields] OR “South America” [all fields] OR “West Indies” [all fields] OR “Argentina” [MeSH] OR Argentina [all fields] OR Aruba [all fields] OR “Belize” [MeSH] OR “Belize” [all fields] OR “British Honduras” [all fields] OR “Bolivia” [MeSH] OR Bolivia [all fields] OR “Brazil” [MeSH] OR Brazil [all fields] OR “Chile” [MeSH] OR Chile [all fields] OR “Colombia” [MeSH] OR Columbia [all fields] OR “Cuba” [MeSH] OR Cuba [all fields] OR “Dominica” [MeSH] OR Dominica [all fields] OR “Dominican Republic” [MeSH] OR “Dominican Republic” [all fields] OR “Ecuador” [MeSH] OR “Galapagos Islands” [all fields] OR Ecuador [all fields] OR “French Guiana” [all fields] OR “Grenada” [MeSH] OR Grenada [all fields] OR “Guyana” [MeSH] OR Guyana [all fields] OR “British Guyana” [all fields] OR “Haiti” [MeSH] OR Haiti [all fields] OR “Jamaica” [MeSH] OR Jamaica [all fields] OR “Netherlands Antilles” [all fields] OR Paraguay [MeSH] OR Paraguay [all fields] OR Peru [MeSH] OR Peru [all fields] OR “Saint Kitts and Nevis” [MeSH] OR “St Kitts and Nevis” [all fields] OR “St. Kitts and Nevis” [all fields] OR “Saint Kitts and Nevis” [all fields] OR Nevis [all fields] OR “Saint Lucia” [MeSH] OR “Saint Lucia” [all fields] OR “St Lucia” [all fields] OR “St. Lucia” [all fields] OR “Saint Vincent and the Grenadines” [MeSH] OR “Saint Vincent and the Grenadines” [all fields] OR “St Vincent and the Grenadines” [all fields] OR “St. Vincent and the Grenadines” [all fields] OR Grenadines [all fields] OR Suriname [MeSH] OR Suriname [all fields] OR “Dutch Guiana” [all fields] OR “Netherlands Guiana” [all fields] OR “Uruguay” [MeSH] OR Uruguay [all fields] OR Venezuela [all fields] OR Venezuela [MeSH] OR Mexico [all fields] OR Caribbean [all fields] OR “Caribbean Region” [all fields] OR “south and Central America” [all fields] OR Belize [all fields] OR “Costa Rica” [MeSH] OR “Costa Rica” [all fields] OR “El Salvador” [MeSH] OR “El Salvador” [all fields] OR “Guatemala” [MeSH] OR Guatemala [all fields] OR “Honduras” [MeSH] OR Honduras [all fields] OR Nicaragua [all fields] OR Nicaragua [MeSH] OR Panama [MeSH] OR Panama [all fields] OR “Sao Tome and Principe” [all fields] OR “Antigua and Barbuda” [MeSH] OR “Antigua and Barbuda” [all fields] OR Barbuda [all fields] OR Antigua [all fields])

Search Group 3: Economics

(costs and cost analysis [MeSH] OR “Cost Measure” [all fields] OR “Cost Measures” [all fields] OR “pricing” [all fields] OR cost of illness [MeSH] OR “cost of illness” [all fields] OR “Illness Cost” [all fields] OR “Illness Costs” [all fields] OR “Cost of Disease” [all fields] OR “Costs of Disease” [all fields] OR “Sickness Cost” [all fields] OR “Costs” [all fields] OR “Disease Costs” [all fields] OR “Disease Cost” [all fields] OR “Burden of Illness” [all fields] OR “Illness Burden” [all fields] OR “Illness Burdens” [all fields] OR “Cost of Sickness” [all fields] OR cost-benefit analysis [MeSH] OR “Cost-Benefit Analysis” [all fields] OR “Cost-Benefit Analyses” [all fields] OR “Cost-Benefit Data” [all fields] OR “Cost Benefit” [all fields] OR “Benefits and Costs” [all fields] OR “Costs and Benefits” [all fields] OR hospital costs [MeSH] OR “hospital costs” [all fields] OR “hospital cost” [all fields] OR cost control [MeSH] OR “cost control” [all fields] OR “cost controls” [all fields] OR “cost containment” [all fields] OR “cost containments” [all fields] OR “cost-effectiveness” [all fields] OR “cost effectiveness” [all fields] OR “cost savings” [all fields] OR cost savings [MeSH] OR “cost savings” [all fields] OR “cost saving” [all fields] OR drug costs [MeSH] OR “drug costs” [all fields] OR “drug cost” [all fields] OR “economic value of life” [all fields])

Other Potential Terms

1. Health Expenditures

2. Health Care Costs [MeSH]

(health care costs [MeSH] OR “health care costs” [all fields] OR “health care cost” [all fields] OR “Healthcare Cost” [all fields] OR “Healthcare Costs” [all fields] OR “Medical Care Costs” [all fields] OR “Medical Care Cost” [all fields] OR “Treatment Cost” OR “Treatment Costs” OR “Medical Care Cost” OR “Medical Care Costs” OR “health cost” [all fields] OR “health costs” [all fields])

3. Managed Care Programmes [MeSH]

(managed care programs [MeSH] OR “managed care programs” [all fields] OR “Managed Health Care Insurance Plans” [all fields] OR “Managed Care” [all fields] OR “Insurance Case Management” [all fields])

Appendix 2. Quality Checklist

Appendix 3. Survey: Developing Guidelines for Estimation of the Cost of Dengue in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region

Limited research has been done to estimate the costs of dengue in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region. Consequently, there is little development of the necessary underlying theory of costs of dengue, and limited data systematically collected for this purpose is available. The research difficulties in this area are compounded by the fact that there is little consensus on which guidelines to adopt to estimate costs associated with dengue.

To make future costs of dengue studies more comparable, it is important to follow standards for estimating costs of dengue. In this survey we would like you to identify areas in a cost of dengue analysis that are considered high priority to cover in the workshop. In other words, areas where there is little development or agreement about its use or applicability to cost analysis. For example, while the study perspective is key in the design of a cost analysis, you may not deem this a priority for the workshop as this is an area that has been well explored in the literature and few disagree of its importance.

Please base your response on your expert opinion and past experience in conducting dengue research and/or dengue economics research in the region. We will compile a list of priority areas based on your survey response, which will serve as the basis for group discussions during the workshop.

1. Name:

2. Country of origin:

3. Area of expertise:

4. E-mail:

5. Have you ever been involved or are you planning to be involved in the design of a cost evaluation of dengue?

a. Yes b. No

If no, please describe areas that you hope to contribute to during the workshop:

6. There are a number of key economic concepts and/or issues that are important in a cost analysis. What concepts and/or issues are high priorities to cover in the workshop? (Please indicate with a check your response on each row)

Key concepts and/or issues in cost analysis

Very high priority

Somewhat of a priority

A low priority

Not a priority at all

Scope of analysis

    

Study duration considerations

    

Study population

    

Study perspective

    

Study outcome measures

    

Sample size calculation

    

Case definition of dengue

    

Health care utilization calculation

    

Full vs incremental cost analysis

    

Financial vs economic costing

    

Description of programme costs

    

Data collection methods

    

Source of information costs

    

Retrospective vs prospective studies

    

Sensitivity analysis

    

Representativeness and/or generalizability of data

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

7. When defining the scope of a cost analysis of dengue, what criteria are high priorities to cover in the workshop? (Please indicate with a check your response on each row)

Criteria for defining scope of study

Very high priority

Somewhat of a priority

A low priority

Not a priority at all

Study question

    

Study duration

    

Study population (or geographical boundary)

    

Study perspective

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

8. For dengue costing, what measures/indicators are high priorities to cover in the workshop? (Please indicate with a check your response on each row)

Measures/indicators

Very high priority

Somewhat of a priority

A low priority

Not a priority at all

Hospital dengue (severe) case

    

Ambulatory dengue (non- severe) case

    

Dengue fever

    

Dengue infection (including asymptomatic)

    

Dengue-related death

    

Dengue serology

    

Haemorrhagic dengue

    

Dengue fever vector-control

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

9. Given the clinical and epidemiological differences of dengue between children and adults, what age groups are high priorities when costing dengue? (Please indicate with a check your response on each row)

Target age groups (years)

Very high priority

Somewhat of a priority

A low priority

Not a priority at all

<2 years

    

2–4 years

    

10–14 years

    

15+ years

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

10. When costing dengue, what sources of information are high priorities? (Please indicate with a check your response on each row)

Possible sources of information

Very high priority

Somewhat of a priority

A low priority

Not a priority at all

Alongside trial

    

Along surveillance study

    

Published/grey literature

    

National administrative data

    

Expert opinion

    

Patient interviews

    

Hospital data

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

11. When costing dengue, what cost components are high priorities? (Please indicate with a check your response on each row)

Cost components

Very high priority

Somewhat of a priority

A low priority

Not a priority at all

Direct medical costs

    

Hospital/outpatient care

    

Medication

    

Diagnostics/procedures

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Direct non-medical costs

    

Transportation

    

Food

    

Lodging

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Indirect costs (patients)

    

Lost wages/non-wage income

    

Lost time at school

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Indirect costs (caretakers)

    

Lost wages/non-wage income

    

Lost time at school

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

12. For costing a dengue outbreak, what cost components are high priorities? (Please indicate with a check your response on each row)

Cost component

Very high priority

Somewhat of a priority

A low priority

Not a priority at all

Treatment

    

Vector control

    

Surveillance

    

Community mobilization

    

Media and promotional activities

    

Promotional material

    

Laboratory equipment

    

Laboratory procedures

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

13. For costing dengue, what approaches are high priorities? (Please indicate with a check your response on each row)

Type of approach

Very high priority

Somewhat of a priority

A low priority

Not a priority at all

Micro-costing

    

Macro-costing

    

Resource valuation

    

Govt. price/reimbursement rates

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

14. When assessing the economic burden of dengue, what output units are high priorities? (Please indicate with a check your response on each row)

Type of approach

Very high priority

Somewhat of a priority

A low priority

Not a priority at all

Money

    

QALYs

    

DALYs

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

Other (please specify):

    

15. Does the government in your country have a standardized method for conducting cost analysis? If so, does the government specify what to include in the analysis? What components of a cost analysis does it specify?

16. What other issues do you think are important when costing dengue?

17. What do you want to get out of participating in this workshop?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Constenla, D., Garcia, C. & Lefcourt, N. Assessing the Economics of Dengue: Results from a Systematic Review of the Literature and Expert Survey. PharmacoEconomics 33, 1107–1135 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0294-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0294-7

Keywords

Navigation