IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v20y2000i4p529-542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Quality‐Adjusted Life Year Weights with Dose‐Response Models for Public Health Decisions: A Case Study of the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption

Author

Listed:
  • Rafael A. Ponce
  • Scott M. Bartell
  • Eva Y. Wong
  • Denise LaFlamme
  • Clark Carrington
  • Robert C. Lee
  • Donald L. Patrick
  • Elaine M. Faustman
  • Michael Bolger

Abstract

Risks associated with toxicants in food are often controlled by exposure reduction. When exposure recommendations are developed for foods with both harmful and beneficial qualities, however, they must balance the associated risks and benefits to maximize public health. Although quantitative methods are commonly used to evaluate health risks, such methods have not been generally applied to evaluating the health benefits associated with environmental exposures. A quantitative method for risk‐benefit analysis is presented that allows for consideration of diverse health endpoints that differ in their impact (i.e., duration and severity) using dose‐response modeling weighted by quality‐adjusted life years saved. To demonstrate the usefulness of this method, the risks and benefits of fish consumption are evaluated using a single health risk and health benefit endpoint. Benefits are defined as the decrease in myocardial infarction mortality resulting from fish consumption, and risks are defined as the increase in neurodevelopmental delay (i.e., talking) resulting from prenatal methylmercury exposure. Fish consumption rates are based on information from Washington State. Using the proposed framework, the net health impact of eating fish is estimated in either a whole population or a population consisting of women of childbearing age and their children. It is demonstrated that across a range of fish methylmercury concentrations (0–1 ppm) and intake levels (0–25 g/day), individuals would have to weight the neurodevelopmental effects 6 times more (in the whole population) or 250 times less (among women of child‐bearing age and their children) than the myocardial infarction benefits in order to be ambivalent about whether or not to consume fish. These methods can be generalized to evaluate the merits of other public health and risk management programs that involve trade‐offs between risks and benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Rafael A. Ponce & Scott M. Bartell & Eva Y. Wong & Denise LaFlamme & Clark Carrington & Robert C. Lee & Donald L. Patrick & Elaine M. Faustman & Michael Bolger, 2000. "Use of Quality‐Adjusted Life Year Weights with Dose‐Response Models for Public Health Decisions: A Case Study of the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 529-542, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:20:y:2000:i:4:p:529-542
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.204050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.204050
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.204050?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Géraldine Boué & Enda Cummins & Sandrine Guillou & Jean‐Philippe Antignac & Bruno Le Bizec & Jeanne‐Marie Membré, 2017. "Development and Application of a Probabilistic Risk–Benefit Assessment Model for Infant Feeding Integrating Microbiological, Nutritional, and Chemical Components," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2360-2388, December.
    2. E. Y. Wong & R. A. Ponce & S. Farrow & S. M. Bartell & R. C. Lee & E. M. Faustman, 2003. "Comparative Risk and Policy Analysis in Environmental Health," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1337-1349, December.
    3. Patrick Hofstetter & Jane C. Bare & James K. Hammitt & Patricia A. Murphy & Glenn E. Rice, 2002. "Tools for Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: Competing or Complementary Perspectives?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 833-851, October.
    4. Barbara A. Knuth & Nancy A. Connelly & Judy Sheeshka & Jacqueline Patterson, 2003. "Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport‐Caught Fish," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1185-1197, December.
    5. Patrick Hofstetter & James K. Hammitt, 2002. "Selecting Human Health Metrics for Environmental Decision‐Support Tools," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 965-983, October.
    6. Heidi Fransen & Nynke De Jong & Marieke Hendriksen & Marcel Mengelers & Jacqueline Castenmiller & Jeljer Hoekstra & Rolaf Van Leeuwen & Hans Verhagen, 2010. "A Tiered Approach for Risk‐Benefit Assessment of Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 808-816, May.
    7. Marie‐Renée Guevel & Véronique Sirot & Jean‐Luc Volatier & Jean‐Charles Leblanc, 2008. "A Risk‐Benefit Analysis of French High Fish Consumption: A QALY Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 37-48, February.
    8. Heleen van Dijk & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Lynn J. Frewer, 2011. "Consumer Responses to Integrated Risk‐Benefit Information Associated with the Consumption of Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 429-439, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:20:y:2000:i:4:p:529-542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.