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