Skip to main content

Table 4 Differences between the intervention and control group (those with ACE-R < 80)

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 = 86)

Intervention (N = 99)

-2LL

Significance p=

Change scores

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Without intervention/control

With intervention/control

Change in -2LL

df change

a

Primary outcome measure

 Balance score (n = 95)

−4.00 (9.77)

−5.22 (8.00)

436.12

435.57

0.55

2

0.76

Other outcome measures

 ACE-R (n = 131)

−1.51 (12.6)

−5.82 (10.2)

983.03

978.15

4.89

2

0.09

 Health today (n = 57)

4.68 (36.2)

3.55 (33.3)

523.99

522.90

1.10

2

0.58

 FES-I (n = 45)

−3.57 (5.7)

−1.92 (4.7)

268.00

267.86

0.14

2

0.93

 PAM-RC (n = 150)

0.57 (3.8)

−0.88 (3.3)

798.39

797.00

1.39

2

0.50

 Cornell resident (n = 81)

1.75 (5.5)

1.44 (4.1)

460.73

460.73

0

2

1.0

 Cornell carer (n = 149)

−0.30 (4.1)

1.20 (4.5)

776.38

768.48

7.91

2

0.019

 NPI-NH (n = 151)

−1.74 (14.1)

1.63 (10.9)

1108.99

1105.75

3.25

2

0.20

 NPI – disruptiveness (n = 151)

−0.44 (4.6)

−0.56 (2.5)

713.57

711.67

1.90

2

0.39

 Sit to stand score (n = 105)

−0.02 (0.8)

−0.13 (0.8)

240.26

239.31

0.96

2

0.62

  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