Table 5

Differences in mean total and factor scores among responders according to reported usefulness of discharge conversation

Reported usefulness of discharge conversationEstimated group differences‡
Low*
(n=140)
High†
(n=220)
MeanSDMeanSDUnadjusted† (95% CI)P valueAdjusted§ (95% CI)P value
DICARES-M
 Overall (11 items)3.740.714.210.57−0.47 (−0.60 to 0.33)<0.001−0.45 (−0.58 to 0.31)<0.001
 CAD (4 items)3.840.954.240.85−0.40 (−0.58 to 0.21)<0.001−0.37 (−0.56 to 0.18)<0.001
 ATT (3 items)4.130.864.580.71−0.45 (−0.61 to 0.28)<0.001−0.45 (−0.62 to 0.28)<0.001
 PIDP (4 items)3.240.903.760.76−0.53 (−0.70 to 0.36)<0.001−0.49 (−0.67 to 0.32)<0.001
NORPEQ
 Overall (6 items)3.910.654.290.55−0.37 (−0.50 to 0.25)<0.001−0.36 (−0.49 to 0.23)<0.001
  • *Response alternatives 1. Not at all, 2. To a little extent, or 3. To some extent for the question: To what extent did you find the discharge conversation useful?.

  • †Response alternatives 4. To a large extent or 5. To a very large extent for question: To what extent did you find the discharge conversation useful?.

  • ‡By linear regression model.

  • §Adjusted for sex, housing status, education, hospital, age, and comorbidity; missing data for housing status (n=9) and education (n=25) were imputed using a multiple imputation technique.

  • ATT, adherence to treatment; CAD, coping after discharge; DICARES-M, Discharge Care Experiences Survey Modified; NORPEQ, Nordic Patient Experiences Questionnaire; PIDP, participation in discharge planning.