Effect outcomes
The results from the main intention-to-treat analyses are presented in Goal attainment measured with the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (0–10, 10 best) indicated by the ability to perform goal (activity) at 4 time points: discharge from rehabilitation (baseline for this particular outcome) and after 2, 7, and 12 months. (A) The average of the first three goals set by the patients was measured over time, while (B to D) the results separately for the first, second, and third goalss, respectively. (E) General health status was measured with the EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (0–100), (F) health-related quality of life was measured with the 5-level EuroQol 5-Dimensions index (0-1), and (G) physical function was measured with the 30-s Sit-to-Stand test at 5 time points: on admission and discharge from rehabilitation, and after 2, 7, and 12 months. Vertical lines indicate the estimated mean values (center) with 95% confidence intervals, and horizontal lines show the fluctuating mean values from baseline to 12 months. Dotted line = intervention group. Unbroken line = control group.Mean difference scores for treatment effects.Estimated with linear mixed models. SD: standard deviation; CI: confidence interval. *Significant at Adjusted for baseline values, seasonal effects, calendar time, and multilevel sampling: positive values favor the intervention group.Unadjusted baseline values.Adjusted for baseline values, seasonal effects, calendar time, and multilevel sampling: negative values favor the intervention group.Primary end-point.COOP/WONCA: The Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Information Project/World Organization of National Colleges, Academies, and Academic Associations of General Practice/Family Physicians questionnaire. Numbers analyzed (nThe per-protocol analyses produced similar results to the intention-to-treat-analyses (adjusted/unadjusted) with respect to group differences and The results from the within-cluster comparisons of the control- and intervention groups (data not shown) also produced similar results with group differences near zero, with one exception (center 2) demonstrating a moderate positive effect of the BRIDGE-intervention, compared to the control condition (mean difference 2.7 [95% CI 0.3, 5.1]).