Table 4.
Summary statistics for the subgroup sensitivity cost-effectiveness bootstrap analyses based on the weekly alcohol use outcome measure.
| Perspective aand condition | Costs (€) b | Effect c | ICER d | NE | NW (inferior) | SW | SE (dominant) | |||
| Gender subgroups |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Male |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Health care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=162) | 193.96 | –2.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=147) | 164.53 | –0.80 | Dominant | 43% | 2% | 3% | 52% |
|
|
|
Societal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=162) | 337.21 | –2.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=147) | 352.43 | –0.80 | 21 | 56% | 3% | 2% | 39% |
|
|
Female |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Health care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=141) | 46.46 | –0.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=240) | 123.48 | –0.77 | Inferior | 48% | 52% | 0% | 0% |
|
|
|
Societal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=141) | 177.04 | –0.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=240) | 327.09 | –0.77 | Inferior | 46% | 52% | 1% | 1% |
| Age subgroups |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Younger adolescents (15-16 years) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Health care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=200) | 50.05 | –1.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=281) | 145.79 | –0.73 | 108 | 80% | 20% | 0% | 0% |
|
|
|
Societal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=200) | 177.07 | –1.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=281) | 334.90 | –0.73 | 149 | 77% | 20% | 0% | 3% |
|
|
Older adolescents (≥17 years) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Health care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=103) | 271.48 | –2.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=106) | 121.27 | –0.92 | Dominant | 28% | 5% | 11% | 56% |
|
|
|
Societal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=103) | 428.90 | –2.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=106) | 341.53 | –0.92 | Dominant | 32% | 7% | 10% | 51% |
| Educational level subgroups |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Low |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Health care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=98) | 263.02 | –2.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=91) | 117.35 | –0.60 | Dominant | 31% | 4% | 7% | 58% |
|
|
|
Societal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=98) | 435.78 | –2.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=91) | 282.38 | –0.60 | Dominant | 26% | 4% | 8% | 63% |
|
|
High |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Health care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=205) | 59.50 | –1.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=296) | 145.76 | –0.83 | 102 | 73% | 26% | 0% | 1% |
|
|
|
Societal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=205) | 179.93 | –1.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=296) | 353.42 | –0.83 | 172 | 70% | 28% | 0% | 1% |
| Religion subgroups |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Religion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Health care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=97) | 46.91 | –2.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=181) | 148.11 | –0.71 | 66 | 92% | 8% | 0% | 0% |
|
|
|
Societal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=97) | 155.80 | –2.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=181) | 336.35 | –0.71 | 110 | 90% | 9% | 0% | 1% |
|
|
No religion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Health care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=206) | 162.24 | –1.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=206) | 131.13 | –0.84 | Dominant | 37% | 14% | 13% | 37% |
|
|
|
Societal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=206) | 313.00 | –1.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=206) | 337.04 | –0.84 | 5 | 42% | 19% | 8% | 31% |
| Ethnicity subgroups |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Dutch |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Health care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=278) | 128.83 | –1.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=356) | 136.90 | –0.84 | 36 | 53% | 8% | 5% | 34% |
|
|
|
Societal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=278) | 262.96 | –1.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=356) | 334.67 | –0.84 | 57 | 60% | 11% | 3% | 26% |
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Health care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=25) | 86.35 | 0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=31) | 164.09 | –0.10 | Inferior | 32% | 51% | 4% | 13% |
|
|
|
Societal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control (n=25) | 259.53 | 0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intervention (n=31) | 360.20 | –0.10 | Inferior | 23% | 49% | 7% | 21% |
aBootstrap analyses were conducted from two perspectives: the health care perspective and the societal perspective.
bCosts per adolescent at 2014 prices.
cReduction in per week alcohol use 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.When an ICER is negative, then it is labeled as being either “dominant” (suggesting that the intervention is both more effective and less costly than CAU) or “inferior” (suggesting that the intervention is both less effective and more costly than CAU).