Skip to main content
. 2012 Sep 6;12:51. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-12-51

Table 2.

Regression analysis for intervention (n = 85) and control (n = 70) group

  Baseline T1 3 months T2 6 months T3 Test-statistic (T2-T1, T3-T1)
Number of participants with UI
Intervention group
40
37
40
0.66 (0.15,2.90), 0.80 (0.34,1.88)
Control group
40
38
34
Frequency incontinence episodes (Number/ 3 days); mean (sd)
Intervention group
8.0 (11.0)
6.6 (9.1)
9.0 (11.4)
−1.71 (−5.99,2.56), 1.38 (−3.03,5.79)
Control group
9.5 (11.5)
7.4 (10.1)
7.1 (9.6)
Physical Performance Test (0-28†); mean (sd)
Intervention group
17.2 (4.87)
 
18.5 (4 14)
3.21 (1.81,4.62), p < 0.001
Control group
15.8 (5.16)
 
14.7 (4.27)
Health Related Quality of Life SF-12 (mental; 0-100); mean (sd)
Intervention group
47.0 (14.2)
 
52.0 (10.0)
0.07 (−4.24,4.39)
Control group
46.0 (12.8)
 
51.3 (8.5)
Health Related Quality of Life SF-12 (physical; 0-100†); mean (sd)
Intervention group
34.7 (12.0)
 
38.3 (11.6)
1.70 (−3.39,6.80)
Control group
34.1 (10.1)
 
35.0 (12.1)
Specific Quality of Life (I-QOL; 0-110†); mean (sd)
Intervention group
68.9 (17.9)
 
65.7 (15.6)
−3.30 (−10.2,3.63)
Control group 62.2 (17.7)   66.2 (15.6)

*corrected for chronic status.

† Higher score indicates better performance.