Skip to main content

Table 4 Distribution of study outcomes at T1 and T2 (3 months), by treatment group and effect estimates of secondary outcomes (intent-to-treat analysis)

From: A nurse-delivered, clinic-based intervention to address intimate partner violence among low-income women in Mexico City: findings from a cluster randomized controlled trial

    

Pre/Post T1–T2 comparison

Treatment × time interaction to examine intervention effects

 

Treatment type

Baseline (T1) n Mean (SD)

Midline (T2) n Mean (SD)

β (95% CI)

P value

β (95% CI)

P value

Use of community resourcesa (ever used measured at T1 vs. 3 months T2)

Intervention

n = 470, 0.75 (1.16)

n = 387, 0.61 (1.22)

−0.16 (−0.30 to −0.02)

0.02*

0.13 (−0.05 to 0.32)

0.17

Control

n = 479, 0.73 (1.17)

n = 393, 0.47 (1.18)

−0.30 (−0.42 to −0.17)

<0.01*

  

Safety planning behaviorsa (ever done at T1 vs. 3 months T2)

Intervention

n = 470, 3.16 (2.85)

n = 387, 3.70 (3.11)

0.48 (0.22–0.75)

<0.01*

0.41 (0.02– 0.79)

0.04*

Control

n = 479, 3.16 (2.91)

n = 393, 3.31 (3.03)

0.08 (−0.19 to 0.36)

0.56

  

Quality of lifea (mental, past month)

Intervention

n = 470, 35.14 (7.45)

n = 386, 37.85 (8.30)

2.85 (1.91–3.79)

<0.01*

1.45 (0.14– 2.75)

0.03*

Control

n = 479, 35.29 (7.90)

n = 392, 36.49 (7.63)

1.40 (0.49–2.31)

<0.01*

  
  1. aOutcome variable is treated as a continuous variable, therefore regression coefficient β and its 95% confidence interval are reported
  2. * Denotes significant finding
  3. IPV intimate partner violence