. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Jul 29;68(10):2382–2389. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16694

Table 2.

ACP Engagement at Baseline and 6 Months After ENACT Group Visits or Control

		Baseline (n = 110)			6 mo (n = 100)			Baseline to 6-mo follow-up (n = 100)
Variable		Control, mean (SD)	Intervention, mean (SD)	P value	Control, mean (SD)	Intervention, mean (SD)	P value	Control effect size^a	Intervention effect size^a
ACP Engagement Score (four-item composite)		4.00 (0.4)	4.21 (0.5)	.54	4.13 (0.4)	4.56 (0.4)	.16	0.075	0.225

Readiness questions	Sign official papers naming a medical decision maker	4.25 (1.2)	4.49 (0.9)	.25	4.39 (1.0)	4.80 (0.7)	.015	0.06	0.19
	Talk to your decision maker about medical care	4.25 (1.1)	4.65 (0.8)	.03	4.28 (1.2)	4.74 (0.8)	.03	0.014	0.053
	Talk to your physician about medical care	3.47 (1.3)	3.47 (1.1)	1	3.59 (1.3)	3.99 (1.2)	.16	0.046	0.20
	Sign official papers about medical care	4.04 (1.1)	4.24 (1.0)	.31	4.26 (1.1)	4.69 (0.9)	.03	0.11	0.24

Note: Significant P values are bolded.

Abbreviations: ACP, advance care planning; ENACT, ENgaging in Advance Care Planning Talks; SD, standard deviation.

Clinically meaningful effect sizes were calculated from changes from baseline (i.e., mean ENACT scores minus mean control scores, divided by pooled baseline SDs) and are based on standardized criteria (i.e., 0.20–0.49, small; 0.50–0.79, medium; and ≥0.80, large).²⁸