Table 5

Estimate of effect of intervention with ICC on site

OutcomeIntervention effect95% CIp ValueFavourable resultICC
Estimate of effect of intervention on quantitative or summary score outcomes (*Rate ratio from Poisson mixed-effects model, all other estimates from linear mixed-effects models)
 CSNAT total (n=646)−0.36(−2.17, 1.44)0.684<00.108
 TRIG-1 early (n=645)−1.96(−3.83, −0.09)0.038<00.106
 TRIG-2 present (n=659)−1.24(−3.95, 1.47)0.322<00.204
 SF-12 mental (n=666)2.58(0.00, 5.15)0.049>00.073
 SF-12 physical (n=666)3.09(0.64, 5.53)0.011>00.105
 Distress level (n=665)−0.18(−0.79, 0.44)0.508<00.029
Number of GP visits since patient death (n=662)1.02*(0.86, 1.20)0.833<10.000
Estimate of effect of intervention (proportional OR) on ordinal response outcomes (ICC calculated on latent scale)
 Asked about support needs (n=595)0.77(0.47, 1.26)0.38>10.013
 Listened to (n=591)0.87(0.51, 1.46)0.600>10.016
 Unable to discuss concerns (n=577)1.05(0.55, 2.00)0.890>10.026
Estimate of effect of intervention (OR) on secondary binary outcomes (ICC calculated on latent scale)
 Place of death was best place (n=673)1.94(1.06, 3.56)0.033>10.032
 Place of death at home (survey), (n=675)2.13(1.25, 3.61)0.006>10.036
 Place of death at home (service), (n=4263)‡0.957(0.76, 1.20)0.698>10.029
  • ‡Model fitted to all carer/patient records, not just survey respondents.

  • CSNAT, Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool; GP, general practitioner; ICC, intracluster correlation; TRIG, Texas Revised Inventory of Grief.