TABLE 2.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Video Intervention: Baseline and Alternative Scenarios

	Program Cost, $	Cases Averted	Costs Averted, $	Net Cost, $
Baseline scenario
40 clinics, 1 y	432,742 (389,227–480,300)	1445 (157–2712)	324,728 (35,089–626,536)	108,015 (−194,894 to 403,751)
Alternative scenarios
80 clinics, 1 y	486,375 (442,261–538,457)	2889 (313–5425)	649,455 (70,178–1,253,071)	−163,080 (−761,200 to 422,553)
40 clinics, 2 y	479,983 (432,833–528,040)	2889 (313–5425)	649,455 (70,178–1,253,071)	−169,473 (−770,708 to 412,706)
HIV included, 40 clinics, 1 y	432,742 (389,227–480,300)	1487 (162–2791)	2,703,858 (314,388–10,209,134)	−2,271,116 (−9,780,644 to 132,523)
50% run, 40 clinics, 2 y	439,118 (394,429–485,810)	1445 (157–2712)	324,728 (35,089–626,536)	114,391 (−189,385 to 408,752)
13% effect on men only, 40 clinics, 1 y	432,742 (389,227–480,300)	1287 (400–2171)	190,784 (57,258–341,585)	241,958 (−86,177 to 386,960)

Costs and outcomes in each scenario are compared with having no intervention (usual care). The means for each output were calculated using the base estimates from Table 1. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals, representing the lower and upper 2.5 percentiles of the simulated data, are in parentheses. Negative net costs indicate that the scenario is cost saving. A 50% run indicates that the intervention was only operating 50% of the time over the intervention period. Results in the last row used a 13% effect size applied only to men and assumed no female effect, whereas results in the other rows applied the 9% effect size to all patients.