Table 2

Results for base case cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and scenario (lifetime) analysis

Presence of smoke-free policyAbsence of smoke-free policyDifference
Mean (95% CI)
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
1. Cost-effectiveness analysis (incremental cost per 10 µg/m3 reduction in PM2.5)
People in custody
 Mean cost£3075£3142−£67Smoke-free policy dominates
 Mean PM2.5 (10 µg/m3)0.313.843.53
Operational staff
 Mean cost£197£230−£33Smoke-free policy dominates
 Mean PM2.5 (10 µg/m3)0.313.843.53
2. Cost-utility analysis (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year)
People in custody
 Mean cost£3075£3142−£67£1241
 Mean QALY0.6820.736−0.054
Operational staff
 Mean cost£197£230−£33Smoke-free policy dominates
 Mean QALY0.8630.8590.004
3. Scenario (lifetime) analysis
People in custody
 Mean cost£22 399£50 838−£28 440 (95% CI 29 433 to −27 377)Smoke-free policy dominates
 Mean QALY21.7820.810.971 (95% CI 0.533 to 1.376)
Staff
 Mean cost£12 343£12 803−£460 (95% CI −546 to −367)Smoke-free policy dominates
 Mean QALY29.8229.550.262 (95% CI −0.033 to 0.544)
  • dominates—less costly and more beneficial.

  • PM, particulate matter; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.