Evaluation of bottom-up interventions targeting community-dwelling frail older people in Belgium: methodological challenges and lessons for future comparative effectiveness studies

Table 3 Functional IMA proxies by disability profile and level of limitation for specific ADL tasks

	Low limit.	IADL (cogn.)	Func.	Func., cogn.	Func., cogn., behav.	P value	Total
Nursing
Hygiene tasks < 3	25.38	39.52	45.95	38.2	37.21		33.33
Hygiene tasks = 3	48.74	54.01	49.01	65.18	62.96		52.22
Hygiene tasks]3–6]	75.51	100	69.78	73.34	70.83		71.19
Hygiene tasks = 6	42.86	100	77.43	80.67	76.71		78.88
P value	–	–	***	***	***		***
Total	29.28	41.65	63.58	74.13	65.51	***	55.54
Physical therapy
Locomotion ≤3	9.83	14.99	22.48	24.89	16.76		17.79
Locomotion > 3	0	0	34.45	45.48	41.03		39.83
P value	–	***	***	***	***		***
Total	9.81	14.99	25.59	33.32	22.32	***	22.02
Parkinson’s medication
Total	5.45	7.67	8.94	12.03	10.49	***	8.82
Incontinence lump sum
Total	1.34	2.73	12.1	22.98	16.24	***	10.99

Table presents for each disability profile (Low limit. Low-level limitations, IADL (cogn.) IADL and low level of cognitive impairment, Func Functional limitations, Func., cogn. Functional & cognitive impairments, func., cogn., behav. Functional, cognitive & behavioural problems) the proportions of people utilizing the service. The p values in columns are obtained from the chi-squared test comparing the disability profiles. The p values in lines derive from the chi-squared test comparing the different levels of limitation for specific ADL tasks. ***: p value ≤0.001; NS No significant; −: minimum expected value < 5

ISSN: 1472-6963