Table 3.
Expected results of the base case cost-effectiveness analysis
| Perspective | Strategy | Cost | ΔCost | Utility (QALYs) | ΔUtility | ICER* ($/QALY) |
| Societal | Standard care | $11 428 | – | 13.13 | – | – |
| Risk-stratified prevention | ||||||
| Braden <10 (very high risk) | $11 410 | −$18 | 13.16 | 0.03 | Dominant | |
| Braden <13 (very high and high risk) | $11 406 | −$22 | 13.16 | 0.03 | Dominant | |
| Braden <15 (very high, high and moderate risk) | $11 404 | −$24 | 13.19 | 0.06 | Dominant | |
| Braden <19 (very high, high, moderate and at risk) | $11 484 | $56 | 13.22 | 0.09 | $622 | |
| Prevention-for-all | $11 668 | $240 | 13.25 | 0.12 | $2000 | |
| Health sector | Standard care | $10 786 | – | 13.13 | – | – |
| Risk-stratified prevention | ||||||
| Braden <10 (very high risk) | $10 768 | −$18 | 13.16 | 0.03 | Dominant | |
| Braden <13 (very high and high risk) | $10 763 | −$23 | 13.16 | 0.03 | Dominant | |
| Braden <15 (very high, high and moderate risk) | $10 761 | −$25 | 13.19 | 0.06 | Dominant | |
| Braden <19 (very high, high, moderate and at risk) | $10 842 | $56 | 13.22 | 0.09 | $622 | |
| Prevention-for-all | $11 025 | $257 | 13.25 | 0.12 | $2142 | |
*ICER=(costa–costb)/(utilitya–utilityb); a ‘Dominant’ ICER refers to option ‘a’ being preferred to option ‘b’ based on resulting in a greater utility at lower cost, ie, cost saving.
ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.