. 2022 Nov 23;24(11):e37843. doi: 10.2196/37843

Table 3.

Differences in the primary and secondary outcomes between the 2 groups.

Outcomes	Intervention group (n=605)	Control group (n=582)	Unadjusted		Adjusted
			Odds ratio (95% CI) or β (95% CI)	Difference^a (95% CI)	Odds ratio (95% CI) or β (95% CI)	Difference^a (95% CI)
Primary outcome, n (%)	71 (11.7)	141 (24.2)	0.4 (0.3 to 0.6)^b	12.5% (8.2% to 16.8%)	0.4 (0.3 to 0.5)^b	10.5% (5% to 15.9%)
Secondary outcome^c, mean (SD)	16.8 (4.2)	20.5 (7.4)	–3.7 (–4.6 to –2.9)^b	–3.7 (–4.6 to –2.9)	–3.6 (–4.5 to –2.8)^b	–3.6 (–4.4 to –2.8)

^aDifference represents risk difference for primary outcome and mean difference for secondary outcome. Risk difference represents the absolute value of the difference in the neonatal readmission rates between the 2 groups. Mean difference represents the difference in the mean maternal anxiety scores between the 2 groups.

^bP<.001 P values were from the odds ratio of the binary logistic regression model and β values were of the multiple linear regression model, with the control group as reference. The primary outcome was neonatal readmission. The secondary outcome was maternal anxiety score due to neonatal jaundice.

^cIncluding mothers whose children developed jaundice symptoms after hospital discharge (intervention group, n=412; control group, n=408).