Table 4.
Measurement and study time point | Follow-up #1 change from baseline
|
Follow-up #2 change from baseline
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SMI | LDE | Mean Difference Between Groups (95% CI) | P-value | SMI | LDE | Mean Difference Between Groups (95% CI) | p-value | |
PUS-FM, total score | −0.9 | −1.2 | 0.3 (−3.7, 4.3) | 0.888 | −2.0 | −0.6 | −1.5 (−4.6, 1.7) | 0.369 |
PUS-FM, lack of clarity subscale | −0.04 | −0.7 | 0.6 (−1.3, 2.5) | 0.515 | −0.3 | 0.02 | −0.3 (−2.0, 1.4) | 0.734 |
PUS-FM, unpredictability subscale | 0.1 | 0.2 | −0.2 (−1.3, 1.0) | 0.774 | −0.2 | −0.3 | 0.1 (−0.9, 1.1) | 0.856 |
PUS-FM, lack of information subscale | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 (−0.8, 1.0) | 0.893 | 0.2 | 0.3 | −0.1 (−0.9, 0.7) | 0.732 |
PUS-FM, ambiguity subscale | −1.5 | −1.3 | −0.2 (−2.7, 2.3) | 0.891 | −1.9 | −0.6 | −1.3 (−3.7, 1.2) | 0.316 |
SCS, cognitive reframing subscale | −0.2 | −1.6 | 1.4 (−3.3, 6.0) | 0.560 | −0.1 | −0.9 | 0.8 (−3.1, 4.7) | 0.694 |
SCS, problem solving subscale | −0.4 | −2.1 | 1.8 (−2.7, 6.2) | 0.434 | −0.4 | −1.4 | 1.0 (−2.6, 4.6) | 0.578 |
Self-efficacy | 0.1 | −2.0 | 2.2 (−4.8, 9.1) | 0.543 | 1.7 | −3.1 | 4.8 (−1.4, 11.0) | 0.125 |
CRA, impact on schedule subscale | −0.2 | −0.2 | −0.04 (−0.4, 0.3) | 0.816 | −0.2 | −0.1 | −0.004 (−0.3, 0.3) | 0.983 |
CRA, caregiver esteem subscale | −0.04 | −0.1 | 0.02 (−0.2, 0.2) | 0.820 | 0.03 | −0.02 | 0.05 (−0.1, 0.2) | 0.584 |
CRA, lack of family support subscale | −0.2 | −0.2 | 0.003 (−0.3, 0.3) | 0.983 | −0.1 | −0.1 | 0.04 (−0.2, 0.3) | 0.774 |
CRA, impact on health subscale | −0.1 | −0.04 | −0.01 (−0.2, 0.2) | 0.927 | −0.04 | 0.002 | −0.04 (−0.2, 0.2) | 0.668 |
CRA, impact on finances subscale | −0.1 | −0.1 | −0.03 (−0.4, 0.3) | 0.878 | 0.1 | 0.05 | 0.03 (−0.3, 0.3) | 0.867 |
Note. LDE = Liver Disease Education, SMI = Self-management Intervention, CI = Confidence interval, PUS-FM = Perception of Uncertainty Scale Family Member, SCS = Self Control Schedule, CRA = Caregiver Reaction Assessment. Estimates are based on a general linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix and adjusted for study site (Duke vs. non-Duke). Results are combined across multiply imputed datasets.
Improvement from baseline to respective follow-up assessments is reflected in negative values for PUS-FM (total score and subscales), and positive values for SCS subscales, self-efficacy, and CRA subscales.