Skip to main content
. 2017 Jan 24;7(1):e013791. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013791

Table 2.

Effectiveness of current policy compared with the ‘no intervention’ scenario by quantile group of Index of Multiple Deprivation (QIMD)

CPP absolute reduction in thousands
CPP relative percentage reduction
QIMD CVD GCa CVD GCa
1 (least deprived) 9.7 (4.6 to 16.2) 1.0 (−0.1 to 2.1) 4.1% (1.9% to 6.5%) 7.3% (−0.9% to 15.3%)
2 11.7 (5.5 to 18.8) 1.1 (0.0 to 2.3) 4.4% (2.3% to 6.8%) 7.8% (0.0% to 16.1%)
3 11.3 (5.3 to 17.8) 1.0 (−0.2 to 2.0) 4.3% (2.2% to 6.4%) 6.9% (−1.3% to 14.7%)
4 10.8 (5.0 to 17.5) 0.8 (−0.1 to 1.9) 4.3% (2.1% to 6.7%) 6.5% (−1.0% to 15.6%)
5 (most deprived) 9.2 (3.8 to 15.5) 0.9 (−0.2 to 2.0) 3.9% (1.6% to 6.0%) 7.2% (−2.1% to 15.6%)
Slope (crude) −0.7 (95% CI −1.6 to 0.2) −0.4 (95% CI −0.6 to −0.2) −2.9% (95% CI −6.1% to 0.4%) −1.6% (95% CI −2.8% to −0.3%)
Slope (directly age and sex-standardised) 4.7 (95% CI 3.8 to 5.7) 0.2 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.3) −0.1% (95% CI −0.5% to 0.2%) −1.5% (95% CI −2.7% to −0.2%)

Absolute and relative median reductions of cases prevented or postponed (CPP) are presented for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and gastric cancer (GCa).

The slope for absolute and relative reduction represents the absolute and relative equity slope index, respectively.

Brackets contain IQRs for the estimated CPP and 95% CIs for the slopes.