Skip to main content

Table 4 The association of study condition with primary outcome measures

From: Addressing sickness absence among adolescents and young adults: an evaluation of the Medical Advice for Sick-reported Students intervention

Primary outcomes Crude modela Adjusted modelb
Intervention vs control condition Intervention vs control condition
B (95% CI) B (95% CI)
Days of sickness absence in past 8 weeks -0.71 (−1.77;0.35) -1.13 (-2.22;-0.05)
  OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Education fit (yes/a bit)c 4.37 (1.25; 15.25) 3.61 (0.98;13.31)
School performance (very good/good)d 1.81 (0.81; 4.07) 1.77 (0.78; 4.03)
  1. Note: bold numbers indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05) between the intervention condition and the control condition, calculated using linear or logistic regression models with the control condition as reference
  2. aModel of follow-up score with correction for corresponding baseline score, without correction for confounders
  3. bModel of follow-up score with correction for corresponding baseline score, intermediate vocational education level and gender
  4. cMeasured on a 5-point Likert scale, dichotomized into ‘yes’ (i.e. ‘yes’ and ‘a bit’) and ‘no’ (i.e. ‘I do not know-no’)
  5. dMeasured on a 5-point Likert scale, dichotomized into ‘good’ (i.e. ‘very good’ and ‘good’) and ‘not good’ (i.e. ‘average and less’)
  6. Missings: Baseline days of sickness absence in past eight weeks = 8, follow-up days of sickness absence in past eight weeks = 20; baseline education fit = 9, follow-up education fit = 23; Baseline school performance = 8, follow-up school performance = 23; intermediate vocational education level = 8; gender = 0
\