Production losses due to mortality associated with modifiable health risk factors in Poland

7Citations
Citations of this article
74Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Epidemiological burden of modifiable mortality risk factors is recognized in literature; however, less is known on the economic losses due to a range of such risks. Aim: To estimate production losses (indirect cost) of mortality associated with risk factors as classified in Global Burden of Disease 2019 Study in Poland in years 2000, 2010, and 2017. Methods: We relied on the human capital method and societal perspective and used sex-, age-, region-, and risk-specific data on mortality due to modifiable risk factors and a set of socio-economic measures. Results: The production losses due to mortality attributable to all investigated risk factors accounted for 19.6–21.0 billion PLN (Polish zloty; 2017 exchange rate: 1€ = 4.26 PLN) and 1.44–2.45% of gross domestic product, depending on year. Behavioural factors were the most important contributor to overall burden (16.7–18.2 billion PLN), followed by metabolic factors (6.8–7.6 billion PLN) and environmental and occupational factors (3.0–3.5 billion PLN). Of disaggregated risks, alcohol and tobacco, high systolic blood pressure, and dietary risks proved to lead to the highest losses. Cost per death was greatest for child and maternal malnutrition, followed by intimate partner violence and childhood sexual abuse and bullying. Moreover, a notable regional variation of indirect cost was identified with losses ranging from 1.21 to 1.81% of regional gross domestic product in 2017. Conclusion: Our findings provide economically hierarchised list of modifiable risk factors and they contribute to inform policy-makers in prioritizing programmes to improve health.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Łyszczarz, B., & Sowa, K. (2022). Production losses due to mortality associated with modifiable health risk factors in Poland. European Journal of Health Economics, 23(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01345-6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free