Skip to main content

Table 3 Effect evaluation of initial outcomes on loneliness literacy: mean (sd) follow-up scores loneliness literacy and regression coefficients for the comparison of the intervention (n = 372) versus the control group (n = 339) and participants who were familiar (n = 152) versus participants who were not familiar (n = 220) with Healthy Ageing

From: Effect evaluation of a two-year complex intervention to reduce loneliness in non-institutionalised elderly Dutch people

Initial outcome loneliness literacy

Mean (sd) follow-upa

Effect estimates

Crude effectb

Age- and gender adjustedc(p-value)

Final modeld(p-value)

Relative effect sizee% (95% CI)

Intervention/control

Intervention

Control

    

LL motivation

2.98 (0.74)

3.07 (0.77)

−0.09

−0.09 (0.12)

−0.13 (0.02)*

−4.4 (−8.3; −0.7)

LL self-efficacy

1.93 (0.76)

1.86 (0.81)

0.08

0.07 (0.20)

−0.01 (0.87)

−0.5 (−6.0; 15.1)

LL social support

2.07 (0.77)

2.17 (0.80)

−0.10

−0.11 (0.07)

−0.17 (0.01)*

−8.2 (−13.6; −2.4)

LL subjective norm

2.44 (1.00)

2.65 (1.00)

−0.21*

−0.20 (0.01)*

−0.28 (0.00)*

−11.5 (−17.4; −5.4)

Intervention only

Familiar

Not familiar

    

LL motivation

2.84 (0.64)

3.07 (0.79)

−0.22*

−0.20 (0.01)*

−0.16 (0.06)

−5.6 (−11.5; 0.14)

LL self-efficacy

1.86 (0.68)

1.97 (0.83)

−0.11

−0.17 (0.04)*

−0.06 (0.46)

−3.2 (−12.2; 5.6)

LL social support

2.02 (0.77)

2.09 (0.77)

−0.07

−0.07 (0.38)

−0.06 (0.51)

−3.0 (−11.8; 5.9)

LL subjective norm

2.32 (0.97)

2.55 (1.00)

−0.23*

−0.23 (0.04)*

−0.20 (0.08)

−8.6 (−18.4; 1.2)

  1. *significant at p < 0.05.
  2. aLower loneliness literacy scores are more favourable.
  3. bDifference in mean score at follow-up between intervention group and control group; or between participants who were or were not familiar with the intervention components.
  4. cMultivariate model for the comparison intervention versus control, and for the comparison familiar versus not familiar, adjusted for age and gender.
  5. dMultivariate model for the comparison intervention versus control additionally included church attendance and mental health. The model comparing familiar versus not familiar additionally included marital status, education, church attendance, and doing voluntary work.
  6. eEffect measure obtained from final model relative to the follow-up score for loneliness literacy in the intervention community.