Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of participant characteristics

From: Understanding service user-defined continuity of care and its relationship to health and social measures: a cross-sectional study

Characteristic

Category

Frequency (%)

Sex

Male

93 (55.7)

Female

74 (44.3)

Ethnicity

White

113 (67.7)

Asian/Asian British

15 (9)

Black/Black British

31 (18.6)

Mixed heritage

6 (3.6)

Other

2 (1.2)

Living situation

Living alone

66 (39.5)

Living with partner

27 (16.2)

Living with parents

18 (10.8)

Living with relatives

10 (6.0)

Living with others

46 (27.5)

Education

Up to age 16

64 (38.3)

Above 16

103 (61.7)

Employment

Full time

7 (4.2)

Part time

9 (5.4)

Sheltered scheme

1 (0.6)

Student

5 (3.0)

Retired

8 (4.8)

Seeking work

11 (6.6)

Unable to work

81 (48.5)

Other

4 (2.4)

Missing

41 (24.6)

Hospital admission over past year?

Yes

57 (34.1)

No

106 (63.5)

Missing

4 (2.4)

Total number of hospital admissions

None

11 (6.6)

1-5

113 (67.7)

6-10

30 (18.0)

11+

13 (7.8)

 

Mean (sd)

Median

Age1

43.6 (10.8)

44.0

CONTINU-UM score2

39.2 (9.3)

40.0

CAN score3

74.0 (28.3)

81.8

BPRS score4

32.5 (10.2)

31.0

BUES score5

76.6 (8.0)

76.0

STAR score6

37.0 (8.7)

39.0

SEIQoL score7

62.3 (16.6)

64.7

  1. 1 The age range was 19 to 65.
  2. 2 CONTINU-ity of Care – User Measure. The range was 14 to 59.
  3. 3 Camberwell Assessment of Need. The range was 0 to 100.
  4. 4 Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale: The range was 18 to 74.
  5. 5 Boston User Empowerment Scale. The range was 54 to 99.
  6. 6 Scale to Assess the Therapeutic Relationship in community mental health care. The range was 6 to 48.
  7. 7Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life. The range was 22 to 100.