Table 2

Effectiveness of current policy compared with the ‘no intervention’ scenario by quantile group of Index of Multiple Deprivation (QIMD)

CPP absolute reduction in thousandsCPP relative percentage reduction
QIMDCVDGCaCVDGCa
1 (least deprived)9.7 (4.6 to 16.2)1.0 (−0.1 to 2.1)4.1% (1.9% to 6.5%)7.3% (−0.9% to 15.3%)
211.7 (5.5 to 18.8)1.1 (0.0 to 2.3)4.4% (2.3% to 6.8%)7.8% (0.0% to 16.1%)
311.3 (5.3 to 17.8)1.0 (−0.2 to 2.0)4.3% (2.2% to 6.4%)6.9% (−1.3% to 14.7%)
410.8 (5.0 to 17.5)0.8 (−0.1 to 1.9)4.3% (2.1% to 6.7%)6.5% (−1.0% to 15.6%)
5 (most deprived)9.2 (3.8 to 15.5)0.9 (−0.2 to 2.0)3.9% (1.6% to 6.0%)7.2% (−2.1% to 15.6%)
Slope (crude)−0.7 (95% CI −1.6 to 0.2)−0.4 (95% CI −0.6 to −0.2)−2.9% (95% CI −6.1% to 0.4%)−1.6% (95% CI −2.8% to −0.3%)
Slope (directly age and sex-standardised)4.7 (95% CI 3.8 to 5.7)0.2 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.3)−0.1% (95% CI −0.5% to 0.2%)−1.5% (95% CI −2.7% to −0.2%)
  • Absolute and relative median 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.