The name is absent

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 PREVENTED
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.

Chere Project Report 11- November 1999