Table 2.

Range of thresholds for which each strategy is most beneficial and corresponding range of net benefits

			Simple cut‐offs		Multiple cut‐offs		Self‐harm		History taking
	n/1000	Prev	Threshold	Benefit	Threshold	Benefit	Threshold	Benefit	Threshold	Benefit
Total	1000	0.23	0.06, 0.16	0.13, 0.17	0.16, 0.31	0.07, 0.13	0.31, 0.39	0.05, 0.07	0.39, 0.56	0, 0.05
No recent history	837	0.16	0.06, 0.16	0.06, 0.1	0.16, 0.31	0.01, 0.06	0.31, 0.39	0, 0.01	NA	NA
Psychiatric history	163	0.56	0.25, 0.52	0, 0.41	‐‐	‐‐	0.52, 0.67	0.15, 0	NA	NA
Substance use disorder (SUD)	497	0.29	0.09, 0.18	0.16, 0.21	0.18, 0.34	0.09, 0.16	0.34, 0.37	0.08, 0.09	0.37, 0.59	0, 0.08
No SUD	503	0.17	0.04, 0.13	0.09, 0.13	0.13, 0.28	0.05, 0.09	0.28, 0.43	0.01, 0.05	0.43, 0.5	0, 0.01
High RP	269	0.09	0.03, 0.04	0.06, 0.06	0.04, 0.15	0.03, 0.06	0.15, 0.33	0, 0.03	‐‐	‐‐
Moderate RP	456	0.22	0.05, 0.18	0.11, 0.18	0.18, 0.24	0.09, 0.11	0.24, 0.35	0.06, 0.09	0.35, 0.64	0, 0.06
Low RP	275	0.38	0.16, 0.24	0.22, 0.26	0.24, 0.5	0, 0.22	‐‐	‐‐	0.5, 0.59	0, 0
White	610	0.25	0.06, 0.15	0.16, 0.2	0.15, 0.35	0.09, 0.16	0.35, 0.41	0.07, 0.09	0.41, 0.61	0, 0.07
Aboriginal	242	0.23	0.11, 0.14	0.11, 0.13	0.14, 0.26	0.05, 0.11	0.26, 0.35	0.01, 0.05	0.35, 0.4	0, 0.01
Other minority	148	0.13	0.03, 0.21	0.04, 0.11	0.21, 0.25	0.03, 0.04	0.25, 0.5	0, 0.03	‐‐	‐‐
Family functioning need	275	0.37	0.17, 0.23	0.19, 0.24	0.23, 0.42	0, 0.19	‐‐	‐‐	0.42, 0.61	0, 0
No‐low family functioning need	725	0.17	0.04, 0.12	0.1, 0.14	0.12, 0.23	0.07, 0.1	0.23, 0.43	0.02, 0.07	0.43, 0.52	0, 0.02
Community functioning need	168	0.34	‐‐	‐‐	0.03, 0.29	0.23, 0	0.29, 0.7	0, 0.23	‐‐	‐‐
No‐low community functioning need	832	0.20	0.06, 0.19	0.09, 0.15	0.19, 0.3	0, 0.09	‐‐	‐‐	0.3, 0.52	0, 0
Employment need	540	0.27	0.08, 0.16	0.17, 0.21	0.16, 0.39	0, 0.17	‐‐	‐‐	0.39, 0.63	0, 0
No‐low employment need	460	0.17	0.04, 0.15	0.08, 0.13	0.15, 0.23	0.05, 0.08	0.23, 0.4	0.01, 0.05	0.4, 0.44	0, 0.01

Note. RP = reintegration potential, where higher potential indicates lower risk (or greater likelihood of reintegrating into society).

‐‐ indicates that the screening strategy is never the optimal strategy (i.e., the more sensitive approach, is at least as effective and would thus be preferred so that the maximum benefit is achieved through treating more people who are ill rather than through screening out those who are not).

NA = history taking is not applied within sub‐groups of inmates reporting a recent history or not because there is no variation within the groups (i.e., they are defined by this step).