Results of the cost-effectiveness study, longitudinal subsample (costs in 2013 INT$)
| Salut area* | Non-Salut area* | Bootstrapped incremental costs | Bootstrapped incremental effects | ICER | |||||||
| Average cost post–pre†‡ mean (SD) | Average proportion of low Apgar§ cases prevented post–pre mean (SD) | Average cost post–pre mean (SD) | Average proportion of low Apgar cases prevented post–pre mean (SD) | ||||||||
| Base case | Bootstrap | Base case | Bootstrap | Base case | Bootstrap | Base case | Bootstrap | ||||
| Healthcare perspective | −1247 (66 658) | −1207 (5892) | 0.016 (0.128) | 0.016 (0.011) | −1156 (176 067) | −1131 (5294) | −0.003 (0.149) | −0.003 (0.004) | −76 | 0.02 | Dominant¶ ** |
| Limited societal perspective | −1249 (66 668) | −1398 (5941) | 0.016 (0.128) | 0.016 (0.011) | −1127 (176 099.98) | −922 (5284) | −0.003 (0.149) | −0.003 (0.004) | −476 | 0.02 | Dominant¶** |
*Salut area, geographical area in Västerbotten county where the Salut Programme was implemented from 2006 and onwards; non-Salut area, remaining part of Västerbotten county. Several of the health outcomes are further described in table 1.
†Premeasure period, 2002–2004; postmeasure period, 2006–2008.
‡The average cost per participant includes intervention costs and resource use costs.
§Apgar at 5 min, a measure of the newborn’s physical condition at 5 min after birth, range 0–10 points.
¶The intervention is less costly and more effective than the comparator (dominant).
**Approximately 3% of the observations have negative effects.
ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; INT$, international dollars.