Skip to main content
. 2016 Apr 11;13:47. doi: 10.1186/s12966-016-0371-0

Table 2.

Stair climbing (count/day/100 employees) at the intervention site compared to the control site for each study period

Period Number of days analyzed Intervention site Control site Intervention effecta p* p**
Mean ± SE Δ (95 % CI) Mean ± SE Δ (95 % CI)
Baseline 15 <0.001
Intervention 1 19 12.1 ± 0.6 1.5 (-0.1;3.2) 20.2 ± 0.6 0.4 (-1.2;2.0) 1.1 (-1.2;3.4) 0.359
Short-term follow-up 1 15 11.7 ± 0.6 1.1 (-0.6;2.9) 20.9 ± 0.6 1.1 (-0.7;2.8) 0.1 (-2.4;2.5) 0.943
Intervention 2 20 12.6 ± 0.5 2.0 (0.4;3.6) 17.2 ± 0.5 -2.6 (-4.3;-1.0) 4.6 (2.3;6.9) <0.001
Short-term follow-up 15 11.5 ± 0.6 1.0 (-0.8;2.7) 19.2 ± 0.6 -0.6 (-2.3;1.1) 1.6 (-0.9;4.0) 0.211
Medium-term follow-up 15 11.1 ± 0.6 0.5 (-1.2;2.2) 17.9 ± 0.6 -1.9 (-3.6;-0.2) 2.4 (0;4.9) 0.055
Long-term follow-up 15 10.8 ± 0.6 0.2 (-1.5;1.9) 17.1 ± 0.6 -2.7 (-4.5,-1.0) 2.9 (0.5;5.4) 0.019

All estimates were from the linear mixed regression model, using site and study period as fixed effects

95 % CI confidence interval at 95 %, SE standard error

Δ estimated mean change between baseline and the study period

a estimated effects in intervention site compared with the control site

*p-value from the interaction effects (i.e. test of difference in change for intervention versus control at each period)

**p-value from the overall interaction effect (i.e. test of difference in change for intervention versus control over time)