Skip to main content

Table 2 TB risk factor specific multipliers applied to probabilities in decision analysis model

From: Social and behavioral risk reduction strategies for tuberculosis prevention in Canadian Inuit communities: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Outcome MEASURE of EffecTa ESTIMATE (95% CI) Comparison Reference
SMOKING
 Infection Relative Risk 1.9 (1.6–2.3) Ever or current smokers vs. never smokers [11]
 Active Disease Relative Risk 1.5 (1.3–1.7) Ever or current smokers vs. never smokers [12]
 Death Relative Risk 2.6 (1.8–3.6) Ever or current smokers vs. never smokers [11]
HEAVY DRINKING
 Infection Relative Risk 2.9 (1.9–4.6) ≥40 g alcohol per day and/or alcohol use disorder
vs. < 40 g alcohol per day and no alcohol use disorder
[38]
 Active Disease Relative Risk 4.2 (2.7–6.5) ≥40 g alcohol per day and/or alcohol use disorder
vs. < 40 g alcohol per day and no alcohol use disorder
[39]
 Death Hazard Ratio 2.4 (1.1–5.3) Addiction to alcohol
vs. no addiction to alcohol#
[40]
FOOD INSECURITY
 Infection Odds Ratio 2.1 (1.0–4.3) Inadequate daily fruit/vegetable intake
vs. adequate daily fruit/vegetable intakeb
[16]
 Active Disease Odds Ratio 2.4 (1.6–3.1) People experiencing household food shortage
vs. not experiencing household food shortage
[41]
OVERCROWDING
 Infection Relative Risk 1.5 (1.1–2.0) Houses with > 1 person per room
vs. houses with ≤ 1 person per room
[20]
 Active Disease Odds Ratio 1.3 (1.2–1.5)c For every additional 0.2 persons per room [19]
  1. aWhere possible, we obtained adjusted estimates from each study
  2. bAdequacy of daily fruit and vegetable intake was determined based on North American reference standards for age and sex, assuming individuals had a “typical” level of physical activity
  3. cWe modified this estimate to reflect the added risk for every additional 1 person per room (we used 1.35 = 3.7 [95 % CI 2.5 − 7.6])