Table 4.
Probability that costs are lower compared to the group with the lowest PAM score
| Total costs from a healthcare perspective (%) | Total costs from a societal perspective (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | PAM 2 vs. PAM 1 | 70 | 73 |
| PAM 3 vs. PAM 1 | 80 | 87 | |
| PAM 4 vs. PAM 1 | 93 | 82 | |
| Adjusteda | PAM 2 vs. PAM 1 | 62 | 63 |
| PAM 3 vs. PAM 1 | 88 | 92 | |
| PAM 4 vs. PAM 1 | 91 | 79 | |
| Adjusted including EQ-5D health status | PAM 2 vs. PAM 1 | 35 | 31 |
| PAM 3 vs. PAM 1 | 52 | 48 | |
| PAM 4 vs. PAM 1 | 71 | 45 |
PAM patient activation measure
The probability that total costs were lower in a certain PAM group compared to the first PAM group was investigated by replicating the regression analyses using bias-corrected accelerated bootstrapping with 5000 replications. The percentage described in this table presents the percentage of the 5000 bootstrap replications that showed lower total costs
aAdjusted for time since TL, sex, and education level