Table 3.

Results of the sensitivity analyses (based on 2500 bootstrap simulations) based on the societal and public health care perspective.

Type of analysis				Incremental costs (in €), mean (95% CI)a		Incremental effects, mean (95% CI)a		ICERb, mean (95% CI)		Distribution over the cost-effectiveness plane (%)
										NEQc		NWQd		SEQe		SWQf
Societal perspective
	Presenteeism costs based on HLQ methodg
		CEAh	–459 (–2155 to 796)		0.30 (0.16 to 0.43)		dominanti		28		—		72		—
		CUAj	–459 (–2155 to 796)		0.0183 (0.0182 to 0.0185)		dominant		28		—		72		—
	Intervention costs plus 20%
		CEA	–1062 (–2801 to 192)		0.30 (0.16 to 0.43)		dominant		6		—		94		—
		CUA	–1062 (–2801 to 192)		0.0183 (0.0182 to 0.0185)		dominant		7		—		93		—
	Intervention costs plus 50%
		CEA	–972 (–2804 to 249)		0.30 (0.16 to 0.43)		dominant		8		—		92		—
		CUA	–972 (–2804 to 249)		0.0183 (.0182 to 0.0185)		dominant		9		—		91		—
	Intervention costs minus 20%
		CEA	–1181 (–3052 to 114)		0.30 (0.16 to 0.43)		dominant		5		—		95		—
		CUA	–1181 (–3052 to 114)		0.0183 (.0182 to 0.0185)		dominant		5		—		95		—
	Intervention costs minus 50%
		CEA	–1271 (–3068 to 18)		0.30 (0.16 to 0.43)		dominant		3		—		97		—
		CUA	–1271 (–3068 to 18)		0.0183 (.0182 to 0.0185)		dominant		3		—		97		—
	Completer analysis
		CEA	–1169 (–2963 to 625)		0.32 (0.18 to 0.46)		dominant		9		—		91		—
		CUA	–1169 (–2963 to 625)		0.0188 (0.0089 to 0.028)		dominant		9		—		91		—
Public health care perspective
	Intervention costs plus 20%
		CEA	246 (–59 to 405)		0.30 (0.16 to 0.43)		831 (59 – 1778)		98		—		2		—
		CUA	246 (–59 to 405)		0.0183 (0.0182 to 0.0185)		14,380 (1135 to 31,826)		98		—		2		—
	Intervention costs plus 50%
		CEA	336 (38 to 503)		0.30 (0.16 to 0.43)		1129 (306 to 2137)		100		—		—		—
		CUA	336 (38 to 503)		0.0183 (0.0182 to 0.0185)		19,360 (4671 to 40,673)		100		—		—		—
	Intervention costs minus 20%
		CEA	127 (–157 to 295)		0.30 (0.16 to 0.43)		413 (–400 to 1185)		87		—		13		—
		CUA	127 (–157 to 295)		0.0183 (0.0182 to 0.0185)		7826 (–4120 to 22,565)		90		—		10		—
	Intervention costs minus 50%
		CEA	37 (–258 to 201)		0.30 (0.16 to 0.43)		129 (–636 to 838)		66		—		34		—
		CUA	37 (–258 to 201)		0.0183 (0.0182 to 0.0185)		2384 (–9114 to 15,017)		66		—		34		—
	Completer analysis
		CEA	206 (–145 to 395)		0.32 (0.18 to 0.46)		656 (–296 to 1725)		92		—		8		—
		CUA	206 (–145 to 395)		0.0188 (0.0089 to 0.028)		12,046 (–3920 to 33,174)		92		—		8		—

^a95% CIs in this column were bias-corrected and accelerated.

^bICER: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

^cNEQ: north–east quadrant.

^dNWQ: north–west quadrant.

^eSEQ: south–east quadrant.

^fSWQ: south–west quadrant.

^gCosts due to presenteeism based on the Health and Labour Questionnaire method.

^hCEA: cost-effectiveness analysis.

ⁱdominant: The intervention resulted in higher effects at lower costs compared to the control.

^jCUA: cost–utility analysis: quality-adjusted life years.