Skip to main content

Table 8 Pros and cons of strategies A, B, and C in terms of results and costs

From: Occurrence and identification of risk areas of Ixodes ricinus-borne pathogens: a cost-effectiveness analysis in north-eastern Italy

Strategies description PROS CONS
Strategy A
(pathogen detection in female ticks collected all over the year)
Good general pathogen detection
in the area
Good identification of risk sites
Good pathogen prevalence
assessment
No detection of sporadic
pathogens
High loss of single pathogen
detections per site
Low reduction of general costs
(30%)
No reduction of travel costs
Strategy B
(pathogen detection in all ticks
collected in the period April-June)
Excellent pathogen detection in
the area
Excellent pathogen prevalence
assessment
Low loss of single pathogen
determination per site
High reduction of travel costs (62%)
Medium efficiency in identifying
risk sites
Low reduction of laboratory
costs (33%)
  Detection of sporadic pathogens  
Strategy C
(pathogen detection in female ticks collected in the period April-June)
Good general pathogen detection
in the area
High reduction of general and
specific costs (64%)
Low efficiency of pathogen
prevalence assessment at local level
Non detection of sporadic pathogens
High loss of pathogen detection
per site