Table 5

The additional effectiveness of ‘ideal’ compared with the ‘current policy’ scenario by quantile group of Index of Multiple Deprivation (QIMD)

‘Ideal’ scenarioCPP absolute reduction in thousandsCPP relative percentage reduction
QIMDCVDGCaCVDGCa
1 (least deprived)7.7 (3.3 to 12.6)0.8 (−0.3 to 1.7)4.2% (2.0% to 6.5%)6.7% (−2.7% to 15.2%)
28.2 (3.6 to 12.6)0.7 (−0.2 to 1.7)4.1% (1.9% to 6.2%)5.6% (−1.7% to 14.4%)
38.9 (4.0 to 14.4)1.0 (−0.1 to 2.0)4.4% (2.1% to 6.9%)8.5% (−0.9% to 17.4%)
48.6 (3.5 to 13.3)0.7 (−0.2 to 1.6)4.4% (1.9% to 6.7%)6.8% (−2.0% to 15.8%)
5 (most deprived)9.7 (4.7 to 14.8)1.0 (0.1 to 1.9)4.9% (2.5% to 7.1%)9.3% (1.0% to 18.4%)
Slope2.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.8)0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4)0.8% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.2%)3.4% (95% CI 2.0% to 4.7%)
Slope (directly age and sex-standardised)5.7 (95% CI 5.0 to 6.3)0.6 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.7)0.7% (95% CI 0.3% to 1.0%)2.9% (95% CI 1.5% to 4.3%)
  • 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.