Table 2 Differences in secondary outcomes between the two distribution strategies
Group “unsolicited supply” N = 194 | Group “supply on demand” N = 176 | Difference (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Educational needs, D-ENAT(0–156), mean (SD) | 81.3 (26.9) | 75.7 (27.5) | −4.2 (−9.9–1.5) |
Self-efficacy, GSES, mean (SD) | 32.4 (5.7) | 32.6 (5.4) | 0.2 (−1.0–1.3) |
Illness perceptions, IPQ-R, mean (SD) | |||
Timeline (6–30) | 24.7 (4.6) | 24.4 (5.4) | −0.4 (−1.3–0.6) |
Consequences (4–20) | 18.9 (4.8) | 18.8 (4.5) | − 0.1 (− 1.1–0.9) |
Timeline cyclical (6–30) | 13.9 (3.4) | 14.2 (3.5) | 0.3 (− 0.4–1.0) |
Personal control (6–30) | 19.0 (3.6) | 19.7 (3.6) | 0.7 (0.0–1.5) |
Treatment control (5–25) | 17.8 (2.9) | 17.9 (3.0) | 0.1 (− 0.5–0.7) |
Illness coherence (5–25) | 17.6 (3.8) | 17.4 (3.6) | − 0.2 (− 1.0–0.6) |
Emotional representation (6–30) | 13.8 (4.3) | 14.1 (4.1) | 0.3 (− 0.6–1.1) |