Table 4.
Effect on end points after one year of treatment
| Control groupN = 90 | Intervention groupN = 89 | Difference betweengroups (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SCORE risk assessment: | |||
| SCORE (%) |
−1.6 (−2.2– -1.0)* |
−1.8 (−2.4– -1.2)* |
.2 (−.6–1.1) |
|
Risk reclassification: | |||
| No change |
42 (46.7 %) |
44 (49.4 %) |
2.7 (−11.9–17.3) |
| Improvement |
41 (45.6 %) |
37 (41.6 %) |
4.0 (−10.5–18.5) |
| Deterioration |
7 (7.8 %) |
8 (9.0 %) |
1.2 (−6.9–9.3) |
|
Cardiovascular risk factors: | |||
| Current smokers (Δ%) |
−8.9 (−16.8– -3.9)*† |
−11.2 (−19.7– -5.5)*† |
2.3 (−6.5–11.1) |
| Phys. inactive participants (Δ%) |
−4.5 (−11.2– -1.3)† |
−11.8 (−20.6– -5.8)† |
7.3 (−.8–15.4) |
| BMI (kg/m2) |
-.1 (−.41–.28) |
-.1 (−.38– .17) |
.04 (−.4–.5) |
| Waist circumference (cm) |
−1.9 (−3.1– -.67)* |
−3.7 (−4.8– -2.6)* |
1.8 (.2–3.4)* |
| Syst. blood pressure (mmHg) |
−5.6 (−8.5– -2.6)* |
−6.8 (−10.3– -3.2)* |
1.2 (−3.4–5.8) |
| Diast. blood pressure (mmHg) |
−3.3 (−4.8– -1.8)* |
−4.4 (−6.3– -2.4)* |
1.1 (−1.4–3.5) |
|
Blood test: | |||
| Total cholesterol (mmol/l) |
-.14 (−.31–.03) |
-.32 (−.52– -.11)* |
.17 (−.09–.44) |
| HDL cholesterol (mmol/l) |
.10 (.05–.14)* |
.07 (.03–.11)* |
.02 (−.04–.08) |
| LDL cholesterol (mmol/l) |
-.18 (−.34– -.02)* |
-.34 (−.52– -.16)* |
.16 (−.08–.39) |
| Triglycerides (mmol/l) |
-.07 (−.18–.04) |
-.17 (−.32– -.03)* |
.10 (−.08–.28) |
| Tot. cholesterol/HDL ratio |
-.34 (−.50– -.18)* |
-.52 (−.73– -.32)* |
.18 (−.08–.44) |
| Glucose (mmol/l) |
.28 (.15–.41)* |
.17 (.06–.29)* |
.11 (−.07–.28) |
| Creatinine (mmol/l) | −6.0(−8.2– -3.7)* | −5.1 (−7.2– -2.9)* | -.9 (−4.0–2.2) |
* significant
† McNemar’s test in dichotomous variables: Δ% current smokers: control group p = .008, intervention group p = .006; Δ% physically inactive participants: control group p = .54, intervention group p = .052.The questionnaire about physical activity after one year was completed by 89 participants from the control group and 89 participants from the intervention group. The 85 participants from the intervention group and the 88 participants from the control group that completed the questionnaire twice were analyzed.
Effects are indicated as delta values in continuous variables and Δ % in dichotomous variables, both with 95% CI. Risk reclassification is indicated as n (%) in both groups and as % in difference between groups.