Llamadas telefónicas de apoyo realizadas por pares para mejorar la salud
Referencias
Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión
Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión
Referencias adicionales
Characteristics of studies
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
Ir a:
| Methods | Setting: Florida, USA Recruitment: Volunteers from two local American Cancer Society (ACS) units. Recruitment was primarily through a word‐of‐mouth campaign encouraging current volunteers to participate and recruit others among their acquaintances and organisations. Each volunteer was asked to list the names, addresses and phone numbers of 10 women whom she knew and would be willing to contact by telephone over a six‐month period and encourage to have a mammogram. Randomisation: RCT 2 arm. There was no clear definition of peer support, however study met the inclusion criteria of using peers that shared one or several key characteristics of the target population. Peer training: There was a half day training session including presentations on mammography and details of facilities, American Cancer Society Breast Health Guidelines, instructions for intervention, practice sessions, a breast cancer fact sheet and a resource guide for local mammography centres. | |
| Participants | 594 women aged over 40 years. | |
| Interventions | Intervention: During a six month intervention period volunteers called their five intervention participants up to three times. At initial contact they emphasized the importance of receiving regular mammograms and asked the participant to set a date by which she would schedule an appointment for screening. During subsequent calls, volunteers determined if the appointment had been made and kept. If at the initial contact, the participant said she had had a mammogram within the last year, she was not called again but congratulated and encouraged to continue receiving regular mammograms. Control group: No intervention. Caller: Calls made by peer supporters. | |
| Outcomes |
Method of assessing outcome measures: phone survey. | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Allocation concealment? | Unclear risk | B ‐ Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Low risk | Quote "The interviews were administered during a two week period by an outside contractor unknown to the participants." |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed? | High risk | The response rate for the post‐intervention interview was 76% for women in the intervention group and 79% in the control group. Total lost to follow‐up 23% (175). |
| Free of selective reporting? | Low risk | Mammography usage was the only outcome measured. |
| Methods | Setting: Boston, San Francisco, USA. Recruitment: Subjects were over age of 65 years, unpartnered (i.e. widowed, divorced, never married and not in a relationship), had a telephone in their home and were able to speak and understand English Randomisation: RCT 3 arm. There was no clear definition of peer support, however study met the inclusion criteria of using peers that shared one or several key characteristics of the target population. Peer training: Training was based on the self‐efficacy model. | |
| Participants | 132 older adults (over age of 65 years) who had experienced a myocardial infarction. | |
| Interventions | Intervention 1: Peer advisor intervention group. The peer advisor was a 'graduate' of a local cardiac rehabilitation program. The peer advisor was encouraged to share personal experiences and information with subjects during telephone contact but was warned to avoid sharing clinical information or health advice. Subjects assigned to the peer advisor group received a telephone call from the peer advisor once a week for the 12 weeks after discharge from the hospital. Intervention 2: Advanced Practice Nurse (APN) group. The APN provided additional patient information. Subjects assigned to the APN group received a telephone call from the APN once a week for the 12 weeks after discharge from the hospital. Both intervention groups received standard care. Control group: Standard care consisting of discharge instructions provided by the clinical nurse. Discharge instructions included a review of medications, diet, physical activity, symptom management and follow‐up appointments. Caller: Calls made by peer supporters. | |
| Outcomes |
Method of assessing outcome measures: phone survey | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation? | Low risk | Table of random numbers. |
| Allocation concealment? | Unclear risk | B ‐ Unclear. |
| Blinding? | High risk | Not done. |
| Blinding? | High risk | Not done. |
| Blinding? | High risk | Not done. |
| Blinding? | High risk | Not done. |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed? | Low risk | Intention‐to‐treat analysis. |
| Free of selective reporting? | Low risk | All measures reported. |
| Methods | Setting: Midlands, England. Recruitment: Participants recruited through 43 general practices in the West Midlands. Randomisation: RCT 3 arm. This study explicitly drew on the definition of peer support by Dennis as "the provision of emotional, appraisal and informational assistance by a created social network member who possesses experiential knowledge of a specific behaviour or stressor and similar characteristics as the target population" (Dennis 2003a). Peer training: Peer supporters were trained at a two day training event on motivational interviewing and listening skills. | |
| Participants | 231 patients with a recent glycated haemoglobin greater than 7.4% and who had been advised of the benefit of reducing their glycated haemoglobin with or without a change in prescribed tablet based therapy. | |
| Interventions | Intervention:Diabetes Specialist Nurses and peer telephone supporters attended a 2‐day training programme that focused on empowerment, motivational interviewing and active listening skills. For both intervention arms the first call was made 3 to 5 days after recruitment. Caller: Calls were made by peer supporters but timing was negotiated with the recipient and the number of calls were as often as the participant deemed necessary. Control group: No intervention. Participants were encouraged to follow medical advice given to them by their GP or practice nurse. | |
| Outcomes |
Method of assessing outcome measures: paper questionnaire and clinical records. | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation? | Low risk | Table of random numbers. |
| Allocation concealment? | Low risk | A ‐ Adequate. |
| Blinding? | High risk | Not done. |
| Blinding? | High risk | Not done. |
| Blinding? | Low risk | Reported by authors. |
| Blinding? | Low risk | Reported by authors. |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed? | Low risk | Intention‐to‐treat analysis. |
| Free of selective reporting? | Low risk | All outcomes reported. |
| Methods | Setting: Toronto, Canada. Recruitment: Participants recruited from 2 semi‐urban community hospitals. Randomisation: RCT 2 arm. This study explicitly drew on the definition of peer support by Dennis as "the provision of emotional, appraisal and informational assistance by a created social network member who possesses experiential knowledge of a specific behaviour or stressor and similar characteristics as the target population" (Dennis 2003a). Peer training: There was a two and a half hour orientation session where the researcher described the study and answered questions. Training was three sessions, each of three hours duration on the prevention and treatment of problems relating to breastfeeding. There were also monthly support meetings. | |
| Participants | 256 breastfeeding first‐time mothers from 2 semi‐urban community hospitals near Toronto. | |
| Interventions | Intervention: Peer volunteers were asked to contact the new mother within 48 hours after hospital discharge. Frequency of contact was not standardized in order to individualize the intervention to the mother's specific needs and to give credibility to the peer volunteer's experiential knowledge. Caller: Calls were made by peer supporters but timing was negotiated with the recipient and calls were made as often as the mother deemed necessary. Control group: Women allocated to the control group had access to the conventional in‐hospital and community post‐partum support services. | |
| Outcomes |
Method of assessing outcome measures: phone survey | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation? | Low risk | Quote: ".....randomly generated numbers constructed by a biostatistician who was not involved in the recruitment process." |
| Allocation concealment? | Low risk | A ‐ Adequate, Quote: "Randomization was achieved using consecutively numbered, sealed opaque envelopes..." |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Low risk | Quote: "A research assistant blinded to group allocation telephoned all participants at 4, 8 and 12 weeks post partum to collect data..." |
| Blinding? | Low risk | Quote: " Data were entered...by 2 research assistants blinded to group allocation." |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed? | Low risk | Quote: "....an 'intention to treat' approach was used to analyse the data." |
| Free of selective reporting? | Low risk | All outcomes reported. |
| Methods | Setting: British Columbia, Canada. Recruitment: participants recruited from a health region near Vancouver. Randomisation: RCT 2 arm. This study explicitly drew on the definition of peer support by Dennis as "the provision of emotional, appraisal and informational assistance by a created social network member who possesses experiential knowledge of a specific behaviour or stressor and similar characteristics as the target population" (Dennis 2003a). Peer training: There was a 118 page handbook that outlined professional services available for referral, definition of peer support, tips and techniques for phone support and post‐partum depression information to be used as a reference guide provided to peer volunteers. | |
| Participants | 42 mothers at high risk for post‐partum depression (PPD) according to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) | |
| Interventions | Intervention group: Peer volunteers (mothers with a history of and recovery from PPD) completed a 4 hour training session. There was also a 118 page handbook that outlined professional services available for referral. Peer volunteers were asked to contact the new mother within 48 to 72 hours of randomization. Caller: Calls were made by peer supporters but timing was negotiated with the recipient and calls were made as often as the participant deemed necessary. Control group: Standard community post‐partum care. | |
| Outcomes |
Method of assessing outcome measures: phone survey | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation? | Low risk | Quote: "envelopes containing randomly generated numbers. This procedure was constructed by a research assistant who was not involved in the recruitment process." |
| Allocation concealment? | Low risk | A ‐ Adequate. Quote: "Randomisation was achieved by using consecutively numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes.." |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Low risk | Quote: "Research assistants blind to group allocation telephoned all participants at 4 weeks post‐randomization to assess depressive symptomology and again at 8 weeks post‐randomization to assess all outcome data." |
| Blinding? | Low risk | Quote: "Data were entered into a data management system by a research assistant blind to group allocation." |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed? | Low risk | Quote: "an 'intention to treat' approach was used to analyse the data." |
| Free of selective reporting? | Low risk | All outcomes reported. |
| Methods | Setting: Los Angeles, USA. Recruitment: 30 churches. Recruitment of women was achieved through announcements during services, meetings and events, special open houses and recruitment events. Randomisation: RCT 2 arm. There was no clear definition of peer support, however study met the inclusion criterion of using peers that shared one or several key characteristics of the target population. Peer training: A survey firm trained and supervised peer volunteers. | |
| Participants | 813 women aged 40 to 80 years. | |
| Interventions | Intervention: One session of telephone counselling was conducted annually for 2 years by trained peer counsellors. The counselling was individualised to address barriers. Women were informed about their risk status and about breast cancer prevalence rates. They were also encouraged to ask their physicians for a referral and information about convenient screening facilities. Thus both educational and behavioural goals were embedded in the intervention. Caller: Calls were made by peer supporters. Control group: No intervention. | |
| Outcomes |
Method of assessing outcome measures: phone survey | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Allocation concealment? | Unclear risk | B ‐ Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed? | Unclear risk | Intention‐to‐treat analysis ‐ not stated. |
| Free of selective reporting? | Low risk | All outcomes reported. |
| Methods | Setting: New South Wales, Australia. Recruitment. Patients were identified whilst in hospital by nurses. Randomisation: RCT 2 arm. There was no clear definition of peer support, however study met the inclusion criteria of using peers that shared one or several key characteristics of the target population. Peer training: No information was provided on peer training. | |
| Participants | 424 patients aged less than 75 years discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of myocardial infarction or other ischaemic heart disease. | |
| Interventions | Intervention: low level of advice by lay persons from the Australian Cardiac Association (ACA) who had suffered from heart disease ‐ most subjects received only a single telephone call. Caller: Call was made by peer supporters. Control group: Usual care. | |
| Outcomes |
Method of assessing outcome measures: mailed questionnaire | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Allocation concealment? | Unclear risk | B ‐ Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Blinding? | Unclear risk | Unclear. |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed? | Unclear risk | Intention to treat analysis ‐ not stated. |
| Free of selective reporting? | Low risk | All outcomes reported. |
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
Ir a:
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| RCT where there are trained volunteers ‐ no information about whether the volunteers were peers. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| Not an RCT. Peer component not by telephone. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where peers are GPs (i.e. healthcare professionals). | |
| Not an RCT ‐ a randomised comparative trial. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| Not an RCT. Not investigating efficacy of intervention ‐ report on prevalence rates. | |
| RCT where intervention facilitated by non‐peers. | |
| RCT where intervention facilitated by non‐peers. | |
| RCT where intervention led by non‐peers. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where lay interventionists were used as opposed to ex‐smokers to provide intervention. | |
| Not a RCT. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| Not an RCT. Trial where intervention is conducted by trained 'paraprofessional' counsellors. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| Not an RCT. Trained lay personnel not peers providing the intervention. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| RCT where intervention led by non‐peers. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| Not an RCT and investigating impact of peer support on the provider. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| Not an RCT ‐ a randomised comparative trial. | |
| Not an RCT ‐ a randomised comparative trial. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| Not an RCT ‐ before and after study. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| RCT where intervention is education not peer support. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| Qualitative study of peers ‐ not RCT. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. | |
| Not an RCT. | |
| RCT where the data relating to the peer support telephone component could not be extracted. |
Content analysis of the interventions of the RCTs included in this review, highlighting the different aspects of peer support
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study, as reported in the risk of bias table for each study.
| Author Date | Results summary |
| For women in the intervention group, 49% had received their most recent mammogram within 6 months of the start of the trial compared to 34% of the women in the control group (p = 0.0005); a 40% relative increase in mammography uptake (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7)). | |
| At 12 weeks post‐myocardial infarction there were no significant differences for self‐efficacy (Jenkins Self Efficacy Scale), recovery behaviours (Duke Activity Status Index), or health status (Medical Outcomes Survey (SF‐36)). | |
| At the 6 month assessment there were no significant differences for self‐efficacy (Diabetes Self‐Efficacy Scale) or clinical outcomes (glycated haemoglobin, cholesterol, and Body Mass Index) between intervention and control group patients | |
| Significantly more mothers in the peer support group than in the control group continued to breastfeed exclusively at 3 months post partum (56.8% versus 40.3%, P = 0.01). Breastfeeding rates at 4, 8 and 12 weeks post partum were 92.4%, 84.8% and 81.1% respectively among mothers in the peer support group as compared with 83.9%, 75.0% and 66.9% among those in the control group (P </ = 0.05 for all time periods). Fewer mothers in the peer support group than in the control group expressed dissatisfaction with breastfeeding (1.5% versus 10.5%; P = 0.02). | |
| Significant group differences were found for probable major depressive symptomatology (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS)) at the 4 week (P = 0.02) and 8 week (P = 0.01) follow‐up assessments. At the 4 week assessment 40.9% (n = 9) of mothers in the control group scored >12 on the EPDS compared with only 10% (n = 2) in the experimental group. At the 8 week assessment 52.4% (n = 11) of the mothers in the control group scored > 12 on the EPDS compared with 15% (n = 3) of mothers in the experimental group. | |
| At one year follow‐up, 7.5% more participants in the peer telephone support group showed a continuation in the uptake of mammography screening than the control group (P = 0.029). | |
| At six months follow‐up, there was no significant difference in cigarette smoking rates, but 54% of participants in the intervention group and 44% respectively of those in the control group reported having changed their diet (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences for quality of life. |
| Outcome | Timing | Intervention group | Control group | P | ||
| Observed (n) | Total (N) | Observed (n) | Total (N) | |||
| Most recent mammogram in study period | 8 months after start of study | 141 | 289 | 104 | 305 | P = 0.0005 |
| Outcome | Timing of outcome assessments | Intervention group Peer telephone | Intervention group Nurse calls | Control group | P | |||
| Mean/ | SD | Mean/ | SD | Mean/ | SD | |||
| Self‐efficacy | Baseline | 5.5 | 2.2 | 6.5 | 6.2 | 5.6 | 2.4 | NS |
| 12 weeks | 7.0/1.5 | 2.0/2.5 | 7.1/1.1 | 2.0/2.3 | 6.8/1.2 | 2.3/2.2 | ||
| Recovery behaviours | Baseline | 15.6 | 6.5 | 17.2 | 9.9 | 17.3 | 8.2 | NS |
| 12 weeks | 18.8/3.2 | 6.6/8.9 | 19.8/1.1 | 7.3/2.3 | 19.5/2.2 | 8.1/10.7 | ||
| MOS SF‐36 | Baseline | 54 | 19 | 59 | 26 | 59 | 21 | NS |
| 12 weeks | 58/3.6 | 21/16 | 67/4.5 | 21/19 | 61/2.8 | 20/20 | ||
| MOS SF‐36 | Baseline | 67 | 23 | 62 | 21 | 66 | 22 | NS |
| 12 weeks | 72/5.2 | 20/18 | 74/11.8 | 20/19 | 68/1.9 | 19/31 | ||
| Outcome | Group | Baseline | 6 months | Difference | P | |||||
| N | Mean | SD | N | Mean | SD | N | Mean (95% CI) | |||
| Self‐efficacy | Peer | 80 | 108 | 30.4 | 73 | 116.3 | 25.7 | 67 | 7.3 (2.6 to ‐12.1) | NS |
| Diabetes | 37 | 109.9 | 21.5 | 33 | 109.4 | 27.4 | 29 | 3.8 (‐5.2 to 12.9) | ||
| Control | 84 | 106.4 | 30.8 | 77 | 111.3 | 30.7 | 72 | 3.1 (‐4.1, 10.3) | ||
| Diabetes distress | Peer | 85 | 14.6 | 12.7 | 75 | 13.3 | 14.1 | 72 | ‐1.7 (‐4.1 to ‐0.7) | NS |
| Diabetes | 39 | 22.7 | 18.8 | 33 | 17.5 | 15 | 30 | ‐5.1 (‐9.2 to ‐1.0) | ||
| Control | 85 | 19.8 | 15.5 | 77 | 13.0 | 14.7 | 72 | ‐4.5 (‐7.4 to ‐1.6) | ||
| Glycated | Peer | 90 | 8.4 | 1.1 | 78 | 8.0 | 1.5 | 78 | ‐0.4 (‐0.8 to ‐0.1) | NS |
| Diabetes | 44 | 8.9 | 1.5 | 37 | 7.9 | 0.9 | 37 | ‐0.9 (‐1.6 to ‐0.3) | ||
| Control | 97 | 8.7 | 1.3 | 86 | 7.9 | 1.1 | 86 | ‐0.8 (‐1.0 to ‐0.5) | ||
| Cholesterol | Peer | 88 | 4.7 | 1.1 | 67 | 4.5 | 0.8 | 67 | ‐0.3 (‐0.5 to ‐0.1) | NS |
| Diabetes | 44 | 4.7 | 1 | 35 | 4.5 | 0.8 | 35 | ‐0.2 (‐0.5 to 0.1) | ||
| Control | 97 | 4.6 | 1 | 78 | 4.4 | 1 | 78 | ‐0.3 (‐0.5 to ‐0.1) | ||
| Body Mass Index | Peer | 88 | 32.4 | 5.9 | 78 | 32.8 | 5.8 | 77 | ‐0.2 (‐0.5 to 0.1) | NS |
| Diabetes | 44 | 33.0 | 7.4 | 36 | 33.3 | 8.3 | 36 | ‐0.2 (‐0.8 to 0.4) | ||
| Control | 96 | 31.9 | 6.3 | 85 | 32.6 | 7.5 | 84 | 0.5 (‐0.3 to 1.4) | ||
| Outcome | Timing of outcome | Intervention | Control | Relative risk (and 95% CI) | P | ||
| Observed (n) | Total (N) | Observed (n) | Total (N) | ||||
| Mothers breastfeeding | 4 weeks | 122 | 132 | 104 | 124 | 1.10 (1.01 to 2.72) | P = 0.03 |
| 8 weeks | 112 | 132 | 93 | 124 | 1.13 (1.00 to 1.28) | P = 0.05 | |
| 12 weeks | 107 | 132 | 83 | 124 | 1.21 (1.04 to 1.41) | P = 0.01 | |
| Outcome | Timing of | Intervention group | Control group | 95% CI | p | ||
| Observed (n) | Total (N) | Observed (n) | Total (N) | ||||
| EPDS >9 | 4 weeks | 9 | 20 | 16 | 22 | 0.9 to 11.81 | P = 0.06 |
| 8 weeks | 7 | 20 | 16 | 22 | 1.52 to 23.18 | P = 0.008 | |
| EPDS > 12 | 4 weeks | 2 | 20 | 9 | 22 | 1.15 to 33.77 | P = 0.02 |
| 8 weeks | 3 | 20 | 11 | 22 | 1.40 to 27.84 | P = 0.01 | |
| Outcome | Time | Experimental | Control | Mean difference | P |
| Maternal self esteem | Baseline | 28.25 (4.19) | 27.8 (3.92) | 0.43 | NS |
| 8 weeks | 30.00 (4.21) | 28.57 (3.83)a | 1.43 | NS | |
| Child care stress | Baseline | 7.10 (3.24) | 7.40 (3.44) | 0.30 | NS |
| 8 weeks | 4.95 (2.68) | 6.48 (3.63)a | 1.53 | NS | |
| Maternal loneliness | Baseline | 24.75 (4.88) | 25.18 (5.50) | 0.43 | NS |
| 8 weeks | 20.37 (5.23) | 23.91 (6.07)a | 3.54 | NS | |
| a n = 21 | |||||
| Outcome | Control | Peer | Control % | Peer | Difference % | P | relative reduction |
| Maintenance | 258 | 264 | 23.3 | 15.8 | 7.5 | 0.029 | 32 |
| Conversion of | 139 | 152 | 37.4 | 34.8 | 2.6 | 0.324 | 7 |
| a Proportion of participants who were attending mammograms at baseline and continued to do so. b Conversion of participants who were not receiving mammograms at baseline to uptake of mammography screening. c Relative to year 1 nonadherence rate under control condition. | |||||||
| Quality of Life factor | Intervention group | Usual care group | P |
| Emotional | |||
| Baseline | 5.20 (0.09) | 5.31 (0.10) | 0.44 |
| Six weeks | 5.07 (0.11) | 4.98 (0.11) | 0.54 |
| Six weeks change from baseline | ‐0.13 (0.09) | ‐0.33 (0.10) | 0.14 |
| 95% CI for change | (‐0.31 to 0.05) | (‐0.53 to ‐0.13) | |
| Baseline | 5.34 (0.09) | 5.34 (0.10) | 0.99 |
| Six months | 5.32 (0.12) | 5.22 (0.11) | 0.55 |
| Six months change from baseline | ‐0.02 (0.11) | ‐0.12 (0.11) | 0.54 |
| 95% CI for change | (‐0.24 to 0.20) | (‐0.34 to 0.10) | |
| Physical | |||
| Six weeks | 5.02 (0.10) | 4.97 (0.10) | 0.72 |
| Six months | 5.35 (0.11) | 5.29 (0.11) | 0.67 |
| Social | |||
| Six weeks | 5.45 (0.09) | 5.31 (0.09) | 0.28 |
| Six months | 5.72 (0.10) | 5.65 (0.10) | 0.62 |
