Table 3a: Views of patients at follow-up on information booklet.
Significant factors (and p-values) from general linear model (intervention factors shown in italics) and percentages (numbers) from cross-tabulations for significant factors.
Factors significant (p<0.05) in GLM (p) | Cross-tabulations of significant factors from GLM showing percentage (number) of patients | |
Found booklet very useful | Automatic (0.030) | 67% (102) automatic vs 54% (77) interactive |
Said booklet definitely told them something new | Personal (0.006) Sex (0.002) AMA*sex (0.035) | 52% (81) of personal vs 41% (58) general 60% (55) men vs 41% (84) women 69% (35) men with no AMA vs 50% (20) men with AMA vs 43% (43) women with AMA 38% (41) women with no AMA |
Thought information definitely relevant | Sex (0.030) | 86% (77) men vs 71% (146) women |
Possibly or definitely were able to find information easily | Meredith (attitude to information) (0.022)
Automatic*monitor (0.048) | 91% (31) do not want information or only want good news vs 80% (202) want all information 89% (73) monitor with automatic vs 85% (45) blunter with interactive vs 79% (69) monitor with interactive vs 78% (56) blunter with automatic |
Possibly or definitely overwhelmed | Newspaper read (0.001) | 30% (48) tabloid vs 12% (16) broadsheet |
Possibly or definitely too technical | Newspaper read (0.020) | 11% (18) tabloid vs 4% (5) broadsheet |
Too limited | Automatic (0.015) | 36% (51) interactive vs 24% (36) automatic |
Information expected but not there | Automatic (0.045) | 23% (31) interactive vs 17% (24) automatic |
Information possibly or definitely changed their ideas | Sex (0.017) | 47% (41) men vs 29% (58) women |
Questionnaires for 325 patients were included in analyses but there were missing data from 27 (8%) to 34 (11%) of these questions. Predictor variables included in the GLMs were the three intervention factors (automatic/interactive, personal/general, anxiety management advice (AMA) or none), age and length of diagnosis (continuous variables), gender, newspaper read, Miller coping style (monitor/blunter), Meredith (attitude to information), and used a computer before (all categorical variables). Interaction terms for gender and intervention factors and coping style and intervention factors were included.
Table 4A: Analysis of 224 patients who said they had shown the booklet to confidant.
Significant factors (p<0.05) from a general linear model are shown with percentages and c 2 values from cross-tabulations. (Intervention factors are shown in italics).
Change in social support score | Significant factors (p<0.05) from GLM (p value) | Percentages (numbers) deteriorating |
Informational | Newspaper read (0.002) | 44% (48) tabloid readers vs 18% (18) broadsheet readers |
Instrumental | Anxiety management advice (0.046) | 27% (26) with AMA vs 13% (15) with no AMA |
Emotional | Anxiety at baseline (0.029)
Miller*AMA (0.044)
Sex*AMA (0.028) | 31% (20) with anxiety >=8 at baseline vs 10% (15) with anxiety <8 at baseline 54% (19) monitor with AMA vs 52% (17) blunter with AMA vs 49% (16) blunter with no AMA vs 46% (16) monitor with no AMA 24% (16) women with AMA vs 17% (5) men with AMA vs 16% (7) women with no AMA vs 10% (7) men with no AMA |
Negative interactions | Miller*Personal information (0.028) | 47% (30) monitors with personal vs 35% (19) blunters with personal vs 34% (11) blunters with general vs 19% (11) monitors with general |
Social support scores were grouped as deterioration, no change, and improvement. Predictor variables included in the GLMs were the three intervention factors (automatic/interactive, personal/general, anxiety management advice or none), age and length of diagnosis (continuous variables), gender, newspaper read, Miller coping style (monitor/blunter), Meredith (attitude to information), and whether case/probable case anxiety at recruitment. Interaction terms between gender and intervention factors and Miller coping style and intervention factors were included.