Results from the cost–benefit analysis under base-case and pessimistic scenarios in which ice cleat programmes are implemented in all Swedish municipalities compared with a business-as-usual scenario without ice cleat programmes
| Estimate | Base-case* | Pessimistic scenario† |
| Incremental benefit, total (million Euros) | 1192.62 (1061.77, 1338.12) | 89.16 (78.05, 101.09) |
| Incremental cost, total (million Euros) | 13.64 (13.35, 13.94) | 27.28 (26.70, 27.88) |
| Net present value, total (million Euros) | 1178.98 (1048.42, 1324.18) | 61.89 (52.35, 73.21) |
| Benefit-to-cost ratio | 87.44 (77.69, 98.31) | 3.27 (2.89, 3.71) |
| Percentage point change in ice cleat users over 4 years, mean | 15.02 (14.96, 15.09) | 3.00 (2.99, 3.02) |
| Expected number of injuries without programmes, total | 25 192 (24 436, 26 008) | 25 192 (24 440, 26 009) |
| Expected number of injuries with programmes, total | 21 441 (20 681, 22 253) | 24 921 (24 176, 25 731) |
| Injuries averted, total | 3751 (3339, 4209) | 270 (240, 307) |
| Relative intervention effect (rate ratio) | 0.85 (0.83, 0.87) | 0.99 (0.99, 0.99) |
| Absolute intervention effect (rate difference, 100 000 person-years) | −50.96 (–45.36, –57.18) | −3.67 (−3.26, 4.17) |
| Pr(cost-beneficial), mean (min–max) | 0.991 (0.989, 0.992) | 0.915 (0.675, 0.963) |
The estimates in the table reflect totals or means for all Swedish municipalities averaged across 100 000 simulations, with the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the simulated estimates in parentheses unless otherwise noted. The simulations are run over a 4-year period. The incremental benefits and costs reflect differences between a scenario where all municipalities have implemented ice cleat programmes versus a business-as-usual scenario. The net present value (NPV) is given by Equation (1), which, if positive, implies that the interventions are cost-beneficial. The benefit-to-cost ratio expresses how much the estimated benefits outweigh the costs in relative terms. The remaining estimates reflect estimated effects on the average change in ice cleat users and on injury rates. Pr(cost-beneficial) is the proportion of the 100 000 simulations in which the NPV is positive, which gives an overall estimate of how likely it is that an ice cleat programme would be cost-beneficial according to the model (for this parameter, the numbers in parentheses reflect the least to most certain municipal-specific estimate).
*Scenario using the best available estimates from table 1.
†Doubled costs, increase in ice cleat use limited to the first year, halved initial compliance and halved effect of ice cleats (compared with the base-case scenario).