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