Table 4

Additional effectiveness of structural policies compared with the ‘current policy’ scenario by quantile group of Index of Multiple Deprivation (QIMD)

‘Feasible’ scenarioCPP absolute reduction in thousandsCPP relative percentage reduction
QIMDCVDGCaCVDGCa
1 (least deprived)2.7 (−1.0 to 6.4)0.3 (−0.7 to 1.1)1.6% (−0.5% to 3.6%)2.6% (−6.2% to 10.3%)
22.4 (−1.2 to 6.6)0.2 (−0.7 to 1.2)1.3% (−0.7% to 3.6%)2.4% (−6.6% to 10.4%)
32.8 (−1.0 to 6.8)0.2 (−0.7 to 1.2)1.5% (−0.7% to 3.6%)2.4% (−7.0% to 10.2%)
42.8 (−1.3 to 7.0)0.2 (−0.7 to 1.0)1.6% (−0.7% to 3.9%)2.2% (−7.5% to 11.2%)
5 (most deprived)3.3 (−0.9 to 7.3)0.3 (−0.7 to 1.2)1.8% (−0.6% to 4.0%)2.7% (−7.7% to 11.6%)
Slope0.6 (95% CI 0.0 to 1.1)0.0 (95% CI −0.1 to 0.2)0.2% (95% CI −0.1% to 0.5%)0.3% (95% CI −1.1% to 1.6%)
Slope (directly age and sex-standardised)1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.3)0.1 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2)0.1% (95% CI −0.2% to 0.4%)−0.2% (95% CI −1.6% to 1.1%)
  • 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.