Table 3.

Summary statistics for the base case sensitivity cost-effectiveness bootstrap analyses.

Perspective aand condition				Costs (€) b	Effect c	ICER d	NE	NW (inferior)	SW	SW (dominant)
Base case analyses
	Weekly alcohol use
		Health care
			Control (n=303)	125.32	–1.51
			Intervention (n=387)	139.08	–0.78	40	55%	10%	6%	30%
		Societal
			Control (n=303)	262.68	–1.51
			Intervention (n=387)	336.71	–0.78	62	60%	14%	3%	23%
	Binge drinking occasions
		Health care
			Control (n=303)	125.32	–0.33
			Intervention (n=387)	139.08	0.16	79	60%	4%	2%	34%
		Societal
			Control (n=303)	262.68	–0.33
			Intervention (n=387)	336.71	0.16	144	69%	5%	1%	25%
Sensitivity analyses excluding outliers
	Weekly alcohol use
		Health care
			Control (n=302)	59.47	–1.55
			Intervention (n=387)	139.08	–0.78	72	82%	17%	0%	1%
		Societal
			Control (n=302)	193.85	–1.55
			Intervention (n=384)	269.19	–0.66	67	80%	12%	1%	7%
	Binge drinking occasions
		Health care
			Control (n=302)	59.47	–0.33
			Intervention (n=387)	139.08	0.16	140	93%	6%	0%	1%
		Societal
			Control (n=302)	193.85	–0.33
			Intervention (n=384)	269.19	0.21	124	87%	4%	0%	9%

^aBootstrap analyses were conducted from two perspectives: the health care perspective and the societal perspective.

^bMean costs per adolescent at 2014 prices.

^cReduction in per week alcohol use or binge drinking occasions between T0 and T1, with negative values indicating an increase at T1 compared to T0.

^dThe presented ICER is the 50 ^thpercentile of 5000 bootstrap replications of the ICER.