Instead, we estimated two threshold numbers of cases that must be averted for the costs to be equal to the benefits of the system.
At a 3% discount, five cases per year (or 14 cases in the first year only) must be averted for the costs of the system to be equal to its benefits (Table 3).
(b) Threshold number of cases averted every year for 5 years above which the system is cost-beneficial.
(c) Threshold number of cases averted in the first year above which the system is cost-beneficial, assuming the system does not avert any cases in subsequent years and continues to incur costs.
If the probability of death is raised to 2.3% (4), the cost of a case increases to $25,997, and the threshold number of cases averted for the system to be economically feasible decreases to 1.5 per year for 5 years, or 4.3 cases in the first year and none in the following years (Table 3).
If the costs of the system doubled or the benefits of a case averted decreased by 50%, the threshold number would increase to 9.9 cases per year, or 28.4 cases in the first year only (Table 3).
* 1 Birth Averted is equivalent to 3.75 Couple Years Protection; 1 CYP is equivalent to 0.27 Births Averted per annum
* Couple year of protection and birth averted are the only measures of output used in the study as they enjoy some universality among family planning programme despite their imperfections.
According to Table 1 832.29 units of condom will avert one birth in 3.75 CYP if adjusted by .0045 (less than one percent effective).
Likewise, the measure of Births Averted provides little information as to the popularity with a client.
At the district level, the average cost of one birth averted is Rs 316.