↓ Skip to main content

The health and economic benefits of the global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis (2000–2014)

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Diseases of Poverty, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The health and economic benefits of the global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis (2000–2014)
Published in
Infectious Diseases of Poverty, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40249-016-0147-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugo C. Turner, Alison A. Bettis, Brian K. Chu, Deborah A. McFarland, Pamela J. Hooper, Eric A. Ottesen, Mark H. Bradley

Abstract

Lymphatic filariasis (LF), also known as elephantiasis, is a neglected tropical disease (NTD) targeted for elimination through a Global Programme to Eliminate LF (GPELF). Between 2000 and 2014, the GPELF has delivered 5.6 billion treatments to over 763 million people. Updating the estimated health and economic benefits of this significant achievement is important in justifying the resources and investment needed for eliminating LF. We combined previously established models to estimate the number of clinical manifestations and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted from three benefit cohorts (those protected from acquiring infection, those with subclinical morbidity prevented from progressing and those with clinical disease alleviated). The economic savings associated with this disease prevention was then analysed in the context of prevented medical expenses incurred by LF clinical patients, potential income loss through lost-labour, and prevented costs to the health system to care for affected individuals. The indirect cost estimates were calculated using the human capital approach. A combination of four wage sources was used to estimate the fair market value of time for an agricultural worker with LF infection (to ensure a conservative estimate, the lowest wage value was used). We projected that due to the first 15 years of the GPELF 36 million clinical cases and 175 (116-250) million DALYs will potentially be averted. It was estimated that due to this notable health impact, US$100.5 billion will potentially be saved over the lifetimes of the benefit cohorts. This total amount results from summing the medical expenses incurred by LF patients (US$3 billion), potential income loss (US$94 billion), and costs to the health system (US$3.5 billion) that were projected to be prevented. The results were subjected to sensitivity analysis and were most sensitive to the assumed percentage of work hours lost for those suffering from chronic disease (changing the total economic benefit between US$69.30-150.7 billion). Despite the limitations of any such analysis, this study identifies substantial health and economic benefits that have resulted from the first 15 years of the GPELF, and it highlights the value and importance of continued investment in the GPELF.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 9%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 16 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,364,646
of 13,698,348 outputs
Outputs from Infectious Diseases of Poverty
#115
of 483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,048
of 258,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infectious Diseases of Poverty
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,698,348 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 483 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.