Save 4.2 Million Lives and Generate $1.1 Trillion in Economic Benefits for Only $41 Billion: Introduction to the Special Issue on the Most Efficient Policies for the Sustainable Development Goals

Lomborg, Bjorn

doi:10.1017/bca.2023.32

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, our estimated benefit-cost ratio of 36 aligns with the range of benefit-cost ratios for the 12 best-buy global development interventions identified by the Copenhagen Consensus Center. 24 The ratios for these interventions range from 18 for nutrition counselling, to 125 for electronic procurement systems.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We compared the benefit-cost ratio distribution to a recent two-year project aimed to identify best-buy interventions in global health and development, 24 and the Copenhagen Consensus Center library of 652 benefit-cost analyses of interventions. 25 We also compared our estimated ratios to representative benefit-cost ratios for noncommunicable disease 26 and nutrition interventions (online repository).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The case for investment in eye health: systematic review and economic modelling analysis

Wong,

Singh,

Everett

et al. 2023

Bull World Health Org

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess how the returns on investment from correcting refractive errors and cataracts in low- and middle-income countries compare with the returns from other global development interventions. Methods We adopted two complementary approaches to estimate benefit-cost ratios from eye health investment. First, we systematically searched PubMed® and Web of Science™ on 14 August 2023 for studies conducted in low-and-middle-income countries, which have measured welfare impacts associated with correcting refractive errors and cataracts. Using benefit-cost analysis, we compared these impacts to costs. Second, we employed an economic modelling analysis to estimate benefit-cost ratios from eye health investments in India. We compared the returns from eye health to returns in other domains across global health and development. Findings We identified 21 studies from 10 countries. Thirteen outcomes highlighted impacts from refractive error correction for school students. From the systematic review, we used 17 out of 33 outcomes for benefit-cost analyses, with the median benefit-cost ratio being 36. The economic modelling approach for India generated benefit-cost ratios ranging from 28 for vision centres to 42 for school eye screening, with an aggregate ratio of 31. Comparing our findings to the typical investment in global development shows that eye health investment returns six times more benefits (median benefit-cost ratio: 36 vs 6). Conclusion Eye health investments provide economic benefits with varying degrees based on the intervention type and location. Our findings underline the importance of incorporating eye health initiatives into broader development strategies for substantial societal returns.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%