2017
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005647
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The socio-economic burden of snakebite in Sri Lanka

Abstract: BackgroundSnakebite is a major problem affecting the rural poor in many of the poorest countries in the tropics. However, the scale of the socio-economic burden has rarely been studied. We undertook a comprehensive assessment of the burden in Sri Lanka.MethodsData from a representative nation-wide community based household survey were used to estimate the number of bites and deaths nationally, and household and out of pocket costs were derived from household questionnaires. Health system costs were obtained fr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
55
0
4

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
(23 reference statements)
3
55
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…I could not work, I could not provide anything to my people." (TA-ENT03) This agrees with studies carried out in several Asian countries, where the cost of treatment forced people to acquire loans and sell family assets [5,6,33]. In the case of Costa Rica, the social public health system (CCSS) provides antivenom and medical care free of charge to most of the people affected, but nevertheless, there are other consequences leading to expenses that have to be taken care of by the patients and their families.…”
Section: Long-term Socioeconomic Consequencessupporting
confidence: 73%
“…I could not work, I could not provide anything to my people." (TA-ENT03) This agrees with studies carried out in several Asian countries, where the cost of treatment forced people to acquire loans and sell family assets [5,6,33]. In the case of Costa Rica, the social public health system (CCSS) provides antivenom and medical care free of charge to most of the people affected, but nevertheless, there are other consequences leading to expenses that have to be taken care of by the patients and their families.…”
Section: Long-term Socioeconomic Consequencessupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Geographically, the greatest impact of snakebite is in the tropical and subtropical regions (with India considered as having the highest rates of incidence and mortality), due to a combination of factors ranging from snake density to developing world status resulting in many local people not having access to footwear, flashlights or adequate medical care [ 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Estimates for snakebite incidence vary widely, ranging from 1.8 million to 5.4 million bites globally per year with tremendous socio-economic impacts [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. However, the lack of robust record keeping in the most affected regions, combined with many victims not presenting to hospital due to logistical or cultural reasons, lead to estimates widely-recognized as likely being gross underestimations.…”
Section: Epidemiologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is despite snakebite being a socially destabilizing force that has a very high medical and social value-for-money in regards to the economy of treatment relative to the more expensive treatment for chronic diseases [ 3 ]. Thus, the limited understanding of snakebite epidemiology has relegated snakebite to an neglected tropical disease status despite the social and economic catastrophic impact it may have [ 19 ]. Entire family groups may be plunged into poverty if the person killed or suffering permanent disability is the primary source of income.…”
Section: Epidemiologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 12 In the study by Kasturiratne et al, high economic losses were evidenced because of out-of-pocket expenditures, losses of income attributable to the event, and expenses by relatives because of patient care. 16 In the study by Magalhães et al, prehospitalization ambulatory care, outpatient care for those who were not hospitalized, postdischarge consultation, treatment (antivenom therapy), hospitalization, costs from the patient’s perspective, and costs from society’s perspective (loss of productivity due to premature death and morbidity) were analyzed. 18…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%