Correction: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multiple health behaviour change intervention in people aged between 45 and 75 years: a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care (EIRA study)

Table 5 Difference in cost and effects; ICUR and ICER between intervention and control patients for the main and sensitivity analyses based on adjusted models.

	REGICOR reduction difference (95% CI)	ICER (€/REGICOR reduction)
Main analysis - Societal perspective (ITT and minimum wage)	0.17 (-0.40; 0.74)	1,727
Main analysis – Healthcare system perspective (ITT and minimum wage)	0.17 (-0.40; 0.74)	1,231
Mean wage (Societal perspective)	0.17 (-0.40; 0.74)	2,536
Maximum regional tariffs^a	0.17 (-0.40; 0.74)	1,559
Minimum regional tariffs	0.17 (-0.40; 0.74)	1,590
Complete-case	0.24 (-0.24; 0.71)	531
Unadjusted analysis^b	0.15 (-0.41; 0.72)	2,226
SUR	0.17 (-0.01; 0.35)	760

All sensitivity analyses considered societal perspective. SUR: Seemingly unrelated regressions. Dominated: Intervention was more costly and less effective. ^aMinimum daily wage is maintained as unit cost for sick leave in this sensitivity analysis. ^bOnly adjusted by baseline costs or effects. ^cConfidence interval in cost when CVR is consider as effect is (-16.21; 275.85). ^dConfidence interval calculated based on bootstrapping. NA: Not applicable due to the outcome not being a continuous variable

ISSN: 1479-5868