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
\