Assessment of Macro-Level Socioeconomic Factors That Impact Waterborne Diseases: The Case of Jordan

Abstract

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an example of a country that suffers from high water scarcity. Additionally, due to the economic drivers in the country, such as phosphate and potash extraction and pharmaceutical production, the little fresh water that remains is generally polluted. The infrastructure, often antiquated in urban areas and non-existent in rural areas, also contributes to poor water conditions and to the spread of waterborne diseases. This paper examines the socioeconomic factors that contribute to diarrhea and hepatitis A on a macro level in Jordan and discusses the public-policies that government officials could use to abate those problems. Ordinary least squares time series models are used to understand the macro-level variables that impact the incidence of these diseases in Jordan. Public health expenditure has a significant impact on reducing their incidence. Furthermore, investment in sanitation facilities in rural regions is likely to reduce the number of cases of hepatitis A. Perhaps the most surprising outcome is that importation of goods and services likely results in a decrease in cases of hepatitis A. However, income has little impact on the incidence of diarrhea and hepatitis A.

Doenças Infecciosas E a Rede De Atenção Primária À Saúde Em Comunidades Ribeirinhas

“…Neste estudo, identificou-se 54 casos da doença entre 2013 e 2017. Esse elevado índice remete à necessidade de investimentos em instalações sanitárias como medida protetiva para redução de casos, e consequente impacto nas despesas advindas da proliferação das hepatites virais (21) . Sobre a meningite, Abaetetuba está entre os municípios da Região do Tocantins com maior ocorrência de casos (15) , totalizando 46 casos confirmados, sendo sete da zona rural, segundo registro no SINAN (20) .…”

Health Economic Publications From the Middle East and North Africa Region: A Scoping Review of the Volume and Methods of Research

“…We found 29 (27.6%) partial economic evaluations involving 10 (9.5%) BIA studies and 19 (18.1%) cost comparisons. Also, we identified 22 (21.0%) efficacy studies reporting costs and three (2.9%) other methods: a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) study for the selection drugs on a formulary list, [26] an econometric modeling of waterborne-disease incidence, [27] and a modeling study of catastrophic costs associated with tuberculosis. [28] The use of main methods (full, partial, and other evaluations and efficacy studies reporting costs) was significantly different between recent and early studies (Fischer's exact test, p ¼ 0.04) and between country income groups (Fischer's exact test, p ¼ 0.04).…”

Assessment of socioeconomic inequality based on virus-contaminated water usage in developing countries: A review

“…The tendency to easily access healthcare facilities can decrease susceptibility to waterborne viral disease complications by providing early detection and required medication to curb morbidity ( Dickin and Schuster-Wallace, 2014 ). As reported by Polimeni et al (2016) , the level of access to healthcare would influence the risk level of waterborne viral infections. Households with low access to health facilities were at a greater risk of waterborne illnesses than households with high access, implying a negative correlation between access to healthcare and waterborne diseases.…”

“…Studies have shown that waterborne diseases vary widely due to a country's standard of living. Polimeni et al (2016) reported varying degree of macro-level socioeconomic factors such as the standard of living; the unbalanced split of rural/urban population; regional inequality; the level of trade (imports of goods and services) and access to health care with an increased risk for viral waterborne illnesses and death. Also, Yongsi and Ntetu (2008) and Pande et al (2008) , whose study areas were developing countries (Cameroun and Benin Republic, respectively), reported that households with the low standard of living recorded a higher prevalence of waterborne illnesses and vice versa; implying that waterborne illnesses could be inhibited or encouraged by households standard of living.…”