Skip to main content

Table 5 Multilevel Analysis for Differences between Informal Caregivers in the Two Cohorts at 3 and 9-Month Follow-up (n = 54)

From: The effectiveness of an integrated care pathway in geriatric rehabilitation among older patients with complex health problems and their informal caregivers: a prospective cohort study

 

3-month follow-up

Mean (SD)a

Adj. mean differenceb

(95% CI)

p-value

9-month follow-up

Mean (SD) a

Adj. mean differenceb

(95% CI)

p-value

Primary outcome measure

CUC; n = 18

CPC; n = 19

n = 54

 

CUC; n = 16

CPC; n = 14

n = 54

 

Self-rated burden of informal caregiving (SRB-VAS; 0-10c)

5.4 (2.2)

4.1 (2.4)

−1.54 (−3.08, − 0.00)

0.050

4.4 (2.2)

3.5 (2.6)

−1.54 (−3.25, 0.17)

0.077

Secondary outcome measures

 Quality of life (CSAL; range 0–100)

68.2 (14.3)

73.2 (15.2)

3.11 (−3.86, 10.01)

0.371

68.7 (11.3)

73.2 (8.2)

5.26 (−2.24, 12.77)

0.158

Mean objective burden of caregiving (Erasmus iBMG)

 • Domestic duties (hours/week)

11.7 (20.9)

9.7 (14.0)

−3.15 (−13.14, 6.84)

0.525

10.4 (12.8)

9.1 (12.5)

−4.54 (−14.54, 5.46)

0.361

 • Personal care (hours/week)

2.0 (3.9)

0.9 (2.4)

0.54 (−1.80, 2.87)

0.646

4.1 (10.5)

5.6 (12.4)

2.99 (−5.36, 11.33)

0.470

 • Moving outside the house (hours/week)

3.2 (2.7)

3.8 (2.6)

−0.72 (−3.33, 1.90)

0.583

3.9 (4.2)

5.6 (8.1)

1.65 (−3.40, 6.71)

0.510

 • Number of hours help from other informal caregivers / volunteers (hours/week)

1.9 (3.0)

1.0 (1.7)

−0.67 (−2.67, 1.32)

0.500

6.4 (20.8)

2.9 (4.8)

−1.92 (−11.73, 7.89)

0.684

  1. CUC Care as Usual Cohort, CPC Care Pathway Cohort
  2. Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05)
  3. aUnadjusted means
  4. bAdjusted for age, sex, living situation and the interaction term “group*time”
  5. cThe underlined score represents the most favorable score