. 2019 Aug 1;27(6):1438–1450. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12814

Table 3.

Change in outcomes^a: T₀ to T₁, T₀ to T₂ and T₁ to T₂

	T₀–T₁	T₀–T₂	T₁–T₂
EQ‐5D‐5L (2017 tariff)	(n = 128)	(n = 61)	(n = 49)
Mean score	T₀ = 0.51; T₁ = 0.67	T₀ = 0.54; T₂ = 0.69	T₁ = 0.67; T₂ = 0.69
Difference in mean score	0.15	0.15	−0.02
95% CI	0.12, 0.18	0.097, 0.20	−0.086, 0.03
p value	<.001	<.001	.451
Effect size^b	0.831	0.728	−0.108
EQ‐5D (VAS)	(n = 127)	(n = 61)	(n = 51)
Mean score	T₀ = 51.58; T₁ = 63.39	T₀ = 51.00; T₂ = 68.77	T₁ = 65.02; T₂ = 68.24
Difference in mean score	11.81	17.77	3.22
95% CI	8.10, 15.52	11.94, 23.60	−3.49, 9.92
p value	<.001	<.001	.340
Effect size^b	0.559	0.780	0.135
ASCOT SCT‐4	(n = 128)	(n = 59)	(n = 47)
Mean score	T₀ = 0.73; T₁ = 0.82	T₀ = 0.70; T₂ = 0.80	T₁ = 0.791; T₂ = 0.792
Difference in mean score	0.09	0.10	0.002
95% CI	0.06, 0.11	0.05, 0.15	−0.04, 0.04
p value	<.001	<.001	.928
Effect size^b	0.641	0.540	0.013
Barthel Index	(n = 96)	Barthel Index not collected at T₂.
Mean score	T₀ = 72.4; T₁ = 80.1
Difference in mean score	7.71
95% CI	4.03, 11.39
p value	.001
Effect size^b	0.424
NEADL Scale	(n = 128)	(n = 64)	(n = 52)
Mean score	T₀ = 9.67; T₁ = 10.40	T₀ = 11.58; T₂ = 13.22	T₁ = 11.50; T₂ = 13.29
Difference in mean score	0.73	1.64	1.79
95% CI	−0.06, 1.51	0.17, 3.11	0.55, 3.03
p value	.071	.029	.006
Effect size^b	0.161	0.279	0.401
GHQ‐12	(n = 128)	(n = 62)	(n = 50)
Mean score	T₀ = 3.95; T₁ = 2.42	T₀ = 3.89; T₂ = 2.10	T₁ = 2.62; T₂ = 2.06
Difference in mean score	−1.53	−1.79	−0.56
95% CI	−1.96, −1.11	−2.46, −1.11	−1.28, 0.16
p value	<.001	<.001	.123
Effect size^b	−0.629	−0.67	0.222

Difference in mean scores between time points are presented with corresponding: p‐values, 95% CI and effect size. Mean scores at each time point are also presented.

For all measures except GHQ‐12, higher scores = better outcomes. For GHQ‐12, it is the reverse.

Cohen's d = (mean₂ − mean₁)/standard deviation, (d = 0.2 small, d = 0.5 medium, d = 0.8 large).