Table 5.

The additional effectiveness of ‘ideal’ compared with the ‘current policy’ scenario by quantile group of Index of Multiple Deprivation (QIMD)

‘Ideal’ scenario	CPP absolute reduction in thousands		CPP relative percentage reduction
QIMD	CVD	GCa	CVD	GCa
1 (least deprived)	7.7 (3.3 to 12.6)	0.8 (−0.3 to 1.7)	4.2% (2.0% to 6.5%)	6.7% (−2.7% to 15.2%)
2	8.2 (3.6 to 12.6)	0.7 (−0.2 to 1.7)	4.1% (1.9% to 6.2%)	5.6% (−1.7% to 14.4%)
3	8.9 (4.0 to 14.4)	1.0 (−0.1 to 2.0)	4.4% (2.1% to 6.9%)	8.5% (−0.9% to 17.4%)
4	8.6 (3.5 to 13.3)	0.7 (−0.2 to 1.6)	4.4% (1.9% to 6.7%)	6.8% (−2.0% to 15.8%)
5 (most deprived)	9.7 (4.7 to 14.8)	1.0 (0.1 to 1.9)	4.9% (2.5% to 7.1%)	9.3% (1.0% to 18.4%)
Slope	2.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.8)	0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4)	0.8% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.2%)	3.4% (95% CI 2.0% to 4.7%)
Slope (directly age and sex-standardised)	5.7 (95% CI 5.0 to 6.3)	0.6 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.7)	0.7% (95% CI 0.3% to 1.0%)	2.9% (95% CI 1.5% to 4.3%)

Absolute and relative 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.