Van Gool & Bridges
Hall et al (1988) estimated their results as follows:
TABLE 1: HALL ET AL EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
|
INTERVENTION |
TARGET |
NUMBER OF MEN |
CASES |
|
One |
Whole pop |
60 000 |
264(10%) |
|
Two |
Target group |
9 000 |
169(20%) |
|
Remaining pop |
51 000 |
0 | |
|
Three |
Target pop |
9 000 |
169 (20%) |
|
Remaining pop |
51 000 |
179(10%) | |
|
Four |
Target pop |
12 000 |
135 (15%) |
|
Remaining pop |
48 000 |
0 | |
|
Five |
Target pop |
9 600 |
317(30%) |
|
Remaining pop |
50 400 |
_____________0_ | |
|
The cost information from the Hall et al study is as follows: | |||
|
TABLE 2: HALL ET AL |
- COSTS, SAVINGS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS RATIO | ||
|
INTERVENTION |
TOTAL SAVING |
COST PER |
NET COST |
|
COST (AUS) |
CASE |
PER CASE | |
|
(AUS) |
PREVENTED | ||
|
PREVENTED |
(AUS) | ||
|
(AUS) | |||
|
One |
331,000 1,250,000 |
1,254 |
(3,481)* |
|
Two |
5,455,000 800,000 |
32,278 |
27,544 |
|
Three |
6,092,000 1,647,000 |
17,506 |
12,773 |
|
Four |
4,284,000 639,000 |
31,733 |
27,000 |
|
Five |
6,459,000 1,501,000 |
__________20,375 |
_________15,640 |
(* indicates net saving.)
This paper will closely follow the approach taken by Hall et al.
13
Chere Project Report 11- November 1999