Table 3.
Association between standardized outcomes and disability stages.
| Standardized Outcomes | Estimates (beta coef.) | Standard Error | 95% | CI | p-value | R2 | R2 gain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCASa | −0.30 | 0.08 | −0.47 | −0.13 | 0.000 | 16.7 | 12.0 |
| EQ-5D-5Lb | −0.38 | 0.08 | −0.53 | −0.22 | 0.000 | 25.2 | 18.67 |
| PROM-Ataxiac | 0.47 | 0.07 | 0.32 | 0.61 | 0.000 | 40.1 | 28.5 |
| FARS-ADLd | 0.54 | 0.06 | 0.42 | 0.67 | 0.000 | 49.6 | 38.7 |
| WEMWBSe | −0.27 | 0.09 | −0.45 | −0.09 | 0.003 | 14.3 | 9.7 |
| COMATAXf | 0.38 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.53 | 0.000 | 28.8 | 18.2 |
| Hearing Lossg | 0.61 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 1.03 | 0.003 | – | – |
| Informal care timeh | 0.23 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.023 | 17.2 | 6.6 |
| Health-care Costs (Payer)i | 0.14 | 0.10 | −0.05 | 0.34 | 0.164 | 9.4 | 1.5 |
| Health-care Costs (Societal)j | 0.27 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.46 | 0.005 | 22.9 | 10.4 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; R2 (gain), coefficient of determination, indicating the proportion of variance explained by the model, with ‘gain’ referring to the additional variance explained when disability stage was added to the baseline model; CCAS, Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale; FARS-ADL, Activities of Daily Living Subscale of the Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale; WEMWBS, Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale; COMATAX, scale for the psychosocial impact of communication disabilities.
Footnotes: Linear (logisticg) regression model with random effects for study site (cluster) and adjusted for age, sex, education, disease duration; bold numbers indicate a statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05).
n = 94; 6 clusters, 15.7 observation per cluster, Wald chi2(5) = 17.64, p = 0.0034.
n = 96; 6 clusters, 16.0 observation per cluster, Wald chi2(5) = 14.14, p = 0.0148.
n = 97; 6 clusters, 16.2 observation per cluster, Wald chi2(5) = 60.87, p = 0.0000.
n = 100; 6 clusters, 16.7 observation per cluster, Wald chi2(5) = 92.49, p = 0.0000.
n = 84; 6 clusters, 14.0 observation per cluster, Wald chi2(5) = 13.03, p = 0.0231.
n = 84; 6 clusters, 14.0 observation per cluster, Wald chi2(5) = 31.47, p = 0.0000.
n = 96; 6 clusters, 16.0 observation per cluster, Wald chi2(5) = 10.68, p = 0.0582.
n = 66; 6 clusters, 11.0 observation per cluster, Wald chi2(5) = 15.74, p = 0.0076.
n = 68; 6 clusters, 11.3 observation per cluster, Wald chi2(5) = 6.40, p = 0.2692.
n = 68; 6 clusters, 11.3 observation per cluster, Wald chi2(5) = 17.58, p = 0.0035.