Table 2

Cost-effectiveness results

Programme number, programme name, author, city/state/country		Incremental benefits per 1000 families (cases of maltreatment avoided)	Incremental programme costs per family, A$	ICER base case (range from sensitivity analysis) per case of maltreatment avoided, A$	ICER minus lifetime costs associated with maltreatment (upper and lower limits^††)	Time frame (months)	Nature of control group	Serious potentials for bias
High risk and very high risk (current abuse, drug use)
1	Special Families Care Project, Christensen et al,17 18 Minnesota, USA	190	30 066	158 000 (119 000–197 000)	48 000 (−161 000 to 108 000)	24	S	1
2	Project 12-Ways, Lutzker et al,36 Illinois, USA	86	10 410	121 000 (91 000–161 000)	10 300 (−198 000 to 70 000)	12	NR	2
3	Home visiting, Gray et al,37 Denver, Colorado, USA	200	13 296	66 000 (48 000–89 000)	−44 000 (−252 000 to 16 000)	27	S	2
4	Home visiting, Bartu et al,38 Perth, Western Australia	–	–	Dominated	Dominated	–	P	1
5	Home visiting, Schuler et al,39 Baltimore, Maryland, USA	–	–	Dominated	Dominated	–	P	0
Medium/high/very high risk
6	Healthy Families New York, DuMont et al,40 New York, USA	11	7064	673 000 (412 000–1 million)	562 000 (354 000 to 622 000)	24	P	0
7	Home visiting, Armstrong et al,41–43 Queensland, Australia	3	2338	718 000 (359 000–1.4 million)	608 000 (399 000 to 667 000)	4	P	0
8	Child Parent Enrichment Project, Barth,44 Contra Costa County, California, USA	–	–	Dominated	Dominated	–	P	1
9	Community infant project, Huxley et al,45 Boulder, Colorado, USA	150	14 969	100 000 (75 000–133 000)	−10 500 (−219 000 to 49 000)	12	P	2
10	Early intervention program, Koniak-Griffin et al,46 47 San Bernardino, California, USA	10	6037	3.6 million (2.7–5.3 million)	3.5 million (3.3 to 3.5 million)	12	P	1
11	Hawaii Healthy Start Program, Duggan et al,48–50 Hawaii, USA	30	19 729	658 000^* (396 000–986 000)	547 000 (339 000 to 607 000)	24	S	1
12	Healthy Families Alaska, Gessner,51 Alaska, USA	62	12 458	201 000 (124 000–296 000)	91 000 (−118 000 to 151 000)	24	NR	2
13	Home visiting, Quinlivan et al,16 Western Australia, Australia	123	2889	23 500^† (17 700–29 300)	−87 000 (−295 000 to −27 000)	6	S	0
14	Early Start, Fergusson et al,21 22 New Zealand	73	16 063	220 000^‡ (166 000–274 000)	110 000 (−99 000 to 170 000)	36	NR	1
14	Early Start, Fergusson et al,21 22 New Zealand	13	16 063	1.2 million^§ (912 000–1.5 million)	1.1 million (890 000 to 1.2 million)	36		1
15	Family Partnership model, Barlow et al,52 two counties in the UK	3	4843	19 million (15–24 million)	18.9 million (18.7 to 19 million)	12	S	0
16a	Nurse home visiting, Olds et al,19 20 Denver, Colorado, USA	79	12 600	159 000^¶ (120 000–199 000)	49 000 (−159 000 to 109 000)	24–48	P	1
16b	Paraprofessional home visiting, Olds et al,19 20 Denver, Colorado, USA	18	12 218	679 000^¶ (430 000–982 000)	569 000 (360 000 to 628 000)	24–48	P	1
17	Parenting on Edge, Mulsow et al,53 Georgia, USA	–	–	Dominated	Dominated	–	NR	2
18	Linkages for prevention project, Margolis et al,54 Durham, North Carolina, USA	30	3764	125 000^* (96 000–167 000)	15 200 (−193 000 to 75 000)	24	P	2
Medium risk
19	Child and Youth Program module, Hardy et al,15 Baltimore, Maryland, USA	83	1743	21 000 (16 000–28 000)	−89 000 (−298 000 to −29 000)	23	NR	1
20	Home visiting, Kitzman et al,55–58 Memphis, Tennessee, USA	0.04	16 420	447 million (337–557 million)	447 million (447 to 447 million)	24	P	1
20		16	16 420	1.1 million^** (795 000–1.3 million)	944 000 (735 000 to 1 million)	108	P	1
Low/medium risk
21	Comprehensive child development program, St Pierre and Layzer,59 USA	–	–	Dominated	Dominated	–	NR	2
22	Home visiting, Dawson et al,60 Colorado, USA	–	–	Dominated	Dominated	–	P	2
23a	PAT programme, Teens combined, Wagner and Clayton,61 California, USA	24	7769	324 000 (244 000–489 000)	213 000 (5000 to 273 000)	24	P	1
23b	PAT programme, Wagner and Clayton,61 Salinas Valley, Northern California, USA	2	8166	3.3 million (2.5–4.2 million)	3.2 million (3 to 3.3 million)	36	P	1
23c	PAT programme, Teen PAT, Wagner and Clayton,61 California, USA	11	7214	656 000 (494 000–1.0 million)	546 000 (337 000 to 605 000)	24	P	1
24a	Nurse Family Partnership, pre and postnatal, Olds et al,23 27–30 Eckenrode et al,24–26 Elmira, New York, USA	47	14 198	304 000 (229 000–378 000)	193 000 (−15 000 to 253 000)	180	P	0
24b	Nurse Family Partnership, prenatal, Olds et al,23 27–30 Eckenrode et al,24–26 Elmira, New York, USA	11	3306	301 000 (228 000–379 000)	190 000 (−18 000 to 250 000)	50	P	0
25	Social support and family health study, Wiggins et al,62 London, UK	–	–	Dominated	Dominated	–	P	1
26	Home visiting, Infante-Rivard et al,63 Quebec, Canada	0.2	4554	25 million (19–31 million)	25 million (25 to 25 million)	12	NR	1
Low risk/general population
27a	Postnatal home visiting, Larson,64 Montreal, Canada	4	4036	901 000 (680 000–1.2 million)	791 000 (582 000 to 851 000)	18	S	2
27b	Pre and postnatal visiting, Larson,64 Montreal, Canada	30	5124	171 000 (85 000–342 000)	61 000 (−148 000 to 121 000)	12	S	2
28	Home visiting, Siegel et al,65 Greensborough, North Carolina, USA	–	–	Dominated	Dominated		S	2

↵* Neglect;
↵† death, maltreatment or foster care placement;
↵‡ severe assault;
↵§ hospitalisation for abuse;
↵¶ psychological abuse;
↵** death;
↵†† upper and lower estimates of cost inclusive of burden of disease (A$318 760 and A$50 366 per child, respectively).
ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; NR, not reported; P, standard care plus low intensity intervention; PAT, The Parents as Teachers; S, standard care.