2.21. Analysis.
Comparison 2 Intensive Case Management versus non‐Intensive Case Management, Outcome 21 Social functioning: 4c. Alcohol ‐ abuse (various measurements, skewed data).
| Social functioning: 4c. Alcohol ‐ abuse (various measurements, skewed data) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Intervention | Mean | SD | Total |
| short term ‐ days using alcohol during previous 6 months (TLFB) | ||||
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 1. ICM | 56.8 | 56.4 | 75 |
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 2. non‐ICM | 47.5 | 58.4 | 68 |
| short term ‐ average endpoint score (AUS, high = poor) | ||||
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 1. ICM | 3.09 | 1.02 | 83 |
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 2. non‐ICM | 2.91 | 1.08 | 73 |
| medium term ‐ days using alcohol during previous 6 months (TLFB) | ||||
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 1. ICM | 59.1 | 53.3 | 75 |
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 2. non‐ICM | 42.8 | 52.9 | 68 |
| medium term ‐ average endpoint score (AUS, high = poor) | ||||
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 1. ICM | 3.11 | 1.05 | 83 |
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 2. non‐ICM | 2.8 | 1.13 | 73 |
| long term ‐ days using alcohol during previous 6 months (TLFB) | ||||
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 1. ICM | 46.4 | 53.6 | 75 |
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 2. non‐ICM | 43.6 | 57.3 | 68 |
| long term ‐ average endpoint score (AUS, high = poor) | ||||
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 1. ICM | 2.64 | 1.12 | 83 |
| Drake‐NHamp 1998 | 2. non‐ICM | 2.77 | 1.18 | 73 |