Skip to main content

Table 3 Differences between the intervention and control group (all participants)

From: Feasibility and efficacy of a multi-factorial intervention to prevent falls in older adults with cognitive impairment living in residential care (ProF-Cog). A feasibility and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

 

Control (N = 71)

Intervention (N = 86)

-2LL

  

Significance p=

ICC (DE)

Change scores

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Without intervention/control

With intervention/control

Change in -2LL

df change

a

 

Primary outcome measure

 Balance score (n = 100)

−3.90 (9.68)

−5.14 (9.63)

470.31

470.11

0.21

2

0.90

0.75 (15.9)

Other outcome measures

 ACE-R (n = 136)

−1.76 (12.63)

−5.90 (9.93)

1019.5

1015.0

4.5

2

0.11

0.37 (8.4)

 Health today (n = 62)

3.83 (35.80)

2.24 (31.74)

574.08

571.97

2.11

2

0.35

0.57 (12.4)

 FES-I (n = 49)

−3.57 (5.73)

−1.86 (4.35)

291.44

290.42

1.02

2

0.60

0.8 (17.7)

 PAM-RC (n = 156)

0.69 (3.74)

−0.88 (3.27)

825.1

823.7

1.4

2

0.50

0.82 (17.5)

 Cornell resident (n = 86)

1.76 (5.43)

1.56 (4.29)

489.77

489.72

0.05

2

0.97

0.52 (11.4)

 Cornell carer (n = 155)

−0.27 (4.08)

1.0 (4.61)

805.43

797.78

7.65

2

0.02

0.74 (15.8)

 NPI-NH (n = 157)

−1.69 (13.96)

0.96 (11.32)

1151.66

1148.39

3.27

2

0.20

0.66 (14.2)

 NPI – disruptiveness (n = 157)

−0.43 (4.51)

−0.81 (2.91)

738.9

736.7

2.21

2

0.33

0.55 (12.0)

 Sit to stand score (n = 110)

−0.02 (0.81)

−0.08 (0.87)

255.2

254.5

0.69

2

0.71

0.85 (18.1)

  1. aAnalysed using multilevel model adjusting for clustering based on care home. The change from baseline to follow up was the dependent variable and the baseline value the independent variable