Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Dec 11.
Published in final edited form as: Health Educ Behav. 2007 Aug 29;35(3):376–395. doi: 10.1177/1090198106290622

Table 2.

Generalized Estimating Equation Models of the Intervention Effect on Mean Change in Lung Function Comparing Preintervention (Spring/Summer 2000) to Postintervention (Spring/Summer 2001)

Intervention
Unadjusted Mean (SD)
Control
Unadjusted Mean (SD)


Pre Post Pre Post




Variable 80–82 Children
458–490
Person-Daysb
23a Children
141–175
Person-Daysb
73–75a Children
502–526
Person-Daysb
30–31a Children
170–177
Person-Daysb
Intervention
Effectc
(95% CI)
p Value
FEV1 intraday variability (%) 15.1 (12.2) 14.4 (12.1) 14.2 (12.0) 17.1 (13.7) –1.3 (–5.8, 3.1) .559
PF intraday variability (%) 15.1 (12.6) 8.7 (8.5) 14.4 (12.3) 11.6 (9.7) –2.1 (–5.0, 0.8) .153
Daily nadir FEV1 (% predicted) 76.7 (22.3) 83.1 (15.7) 79.5 (19.9) 75.6 (18.5) 10.0 (0.9, 19.1) .032
Daily nadir PF (% predicted) 79.6 (19.9) 94.1 (15.0) 82.7 (18.0) 85.1 (19.2) 8.2 (1.1, 15.2) .023

NOTE: CI = confidence interval; FEV1 = forced expiratory volume at one second; PF = peak expiratory flow.

a

Number of children varies in each regression based on available valid data.

b

Number of person-days varies in each regression based on available valid data.

c

The intervention effect is adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, location of residence, and household income.