Skip to main content

Table 5 A summary of the results from GLMM and GEE1 in conjunction with small sample corrections applied to the Informed Choice cRCT data (with ten clusters)

From: Analysing cluster randomised controlled trials using GLMM, GEE1, GEE2, and QIF: results from four case studies

 

Continuous outcome1

Binary outcome2

Method

Type of modelling

Intervention effect

SE

P-value

95% CI

Intervention effect

SE

P-value

95% CI

GLMMSat

Unadjusted

0.20

0.11

0.1371

(-0.09, 0.52)

1.12

0.11

0.4796

(0.29, 4.31)

Adjusteda

0.22

0.10

0.0930

(-0.05, 0.52)

1.08

0.11

0.6234

(0.27, 4.26)

GEE1FG

Unadjusted

0.20

0.11

0.1853

(-0.13, 0.53)

1.12

0.06

0.3229

(0.79, 1.61)

Adjusteda

0.22

0.10

0.1086

(-0.06, 0.50)

1.06

0.05

0.5495

(0.80, 1.38)

  1. aModel adjusted for mother’s age, age mother left education, parity, and delivering style. Note that SE Standard error, CI Confidence interval, GLMM Generalized linear mixed model, GEE Generalized estimating equations, QIF Quadratic inference function, Sat Satterthwaite, FG Fay & Graubard
  2. 1. Knowledge of informed choice leaflets score at 8 weeks postnatally. Knowledge is scored on a 0 to 10 scale with higher scores indicating a greater knowledge of the leaflets
  3. 2. Proportion of women who answered “yes” to the question “Have you had enough information and discussion with midwives or doctors to make a choice together about all the things that happened during maternity care?” with the options “yes,” “partly,” “no,” “there was no choice,” and “did not apply.”