Table 2.
Composite scores at the 3- and 6-month follow-up.
| Time and composite score | Control (n=112) | Intention-to-treat (n=110)a | Per-protocol (n=76)a | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Value | ORb (95% CI) | P value | Value | OR (95% CI) | P value | ||||||||||
| 3 months | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
Composite score 1c, n (%) | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Improved | 10 (8.9) | 15 (14) | 1.663 (0.712-3.884) | .24 | 14 (19.2) | 2.420 (1.011-5.792) | .047d | ||||||||
|
|
|
Deteriorated or unchanged | 102 (91.1) | 92 (86) | 1.663 (0.712-3.884) | .24 | 59 (80.8) | 2.420 (1.011-5.792) | .047d | ||||||||
|
|
Composite score 2e, n (%) | —f | — |
|
— |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
Improved | 10 (8.9) | 15 (14) |
|
|
14 (19.2) |
|
.04d | ||||||||
|
|
|
Unchanged | 89 (79.5) | 83 (77.6) |
|
|
54 (74) |
|
.04d | ||||||||
|
|
|
Deteriorated | 13 (11.6) | 9 (8.4) |
|
|
5 (6.8) |
|
.04d | ||||||||
| 6 months | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
Composite score 1c, n (%) | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Improved | 13 (11.6) | 16 (15) | 1.339 (0.611-2.936) | .47 | 13 (17.8) | 1.650 (0.717-3.795) | .24 | ||||||||
|
|
|
Deteriorated or unchanged | 99 (88.4) | 91 (85) | 1.339 (0.611-2.936) | .47 | 60 (82.2) | 1.650 (0.717-3.795) | .24 | ||||||||
|
|
Composite score 2e, n (%) | — | — |
|
— |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
Improved | 13 (11.6) | 16 (15) |
|
|
13 (17.8) |
|
.50 | ||||||||
|
|
|
Unchanged | 83 (74.1) | 74 (69.2) |
|
|
49 (67.1) |
|
.50 | ||||||||
|
|
|
Deteriorated | 16 (14.3) | 17 (15.9) |
|
|
11 (15.1) |
|
.50 | ||||||||
a3 missing values (no general self-efficacy score at baseline).
bOR: odds ratio.
cComposite score dichotomized into improved vs deteriorated or unchanged.
dSignificant at P<.05.
eComposite score improved vs unchanged vs deteriorated.
fThe statistical test used (Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test) does not generate odds ratio or 95% CI.