Table 2.
The association between overall WCRF/AICR adherence score and HRQL and fatigue using multivariable linear regression (N = 1096)
| HRQL | WCRF adherence scores | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tertile 1 < 4.42 points |
Tertile 2 4.42–5.25 points |
Tertile 3 > 5.25 points |
Continuous | |
| Physical functioning | REF | 3.88 (4.42, 6.33)* | 6.94 (4.46, 9.42)* | 2.71 (1.73, 3.68)* |
| Role functioning | REF | 4.76 (1.40, 8.12)* | 7.49 (4.09, 10.89)* | 2.87 (1.53, 4.21)* |
| Emotional functioning | REF | 2.35 (− 0.06, 4.75) | 3.34 (0.90, 5.77)* | 0.85 (− 0.11, 1.81) |
| Cognitive functioning | REF | 1.90 (− 0.77, 4.57) | 3.48 (0.78, 6.17)* | 1.25 (0.19, 2.32)* |
| Social functioning | REF | 3.56 (0.67, 6.44)* | 6.12 (3.21, 9.04)* | 2.01 (0.85, 3.16)* |
| Global health status/QL | REF | 1.68 (− 0.70, 4.07) | 4.33 (1.92, 6.74)* | 1.64 (0.69, 2.59)* |
| fatigue | REF | − 3.87 (− 6.90, − 0.84)* | − 7.65 (− 10.72, − 4.59)* | − 2.81 (− 4.02, − 1.60)* |
Results are expressed as β (95% confidence interval (CI)). All models were adjusted for age, gender, comorbidities and smoking. An increase in functioning scores and global health status indicates an improvement in HRQL. A decrease in fatigue scores indicates an improvement in fatigue
*p < 0.05