Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparison of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of active informal caregivers and drop-outs at 6-months, and 1- and 2-years follow-up

From: Study retention and attrition in a longitudinal cohort study including patient-reported outcomes, fieldwork and biobank samples: results of the Netherlands quality of life and Biomedical cohort study (NET-QUBIC) among 739 head and neck cancer patients and 262 informal caregivers

 

6 months follow-up

1 year follow-up

2 years follow-up

Active caregivers

N = 172

Drop-outs (all)

N = 90

Drop-outs (excl. With inactive patients)

N = 58

p-value

active vs.

drop-outs

(all)

p-value active vs. drop-outs

(excl. inactive)

Active caregivers

N = 161

Drop-outs (all)

N = 101

Drop-outs (excl. With inactive patients)

N = 54

p-value

active vs.

drop-outs

(all)

p-value active vs. drop-outs

(excl. inactive)

Active caregivers

N = 136

Drop-outs (all)

N = 126

Drop-outs (excl. With inactive patients)

N = 57

p-value

active vs.

drop-outs

(all)

p-value active vs. drop-outs

(excl. inactive)

Gender, n (%)

   

0.76

0.32

   

0.77

0.40

   

0.51

0.75

 Men

47 (27%)

23 (26%)

12 (21%)

  

42 (26%)

28 (28%)

11 (20%)

  

34 (25%)

36 (29%)

13 (23%)

  

 Women

125 (73%)

67 (74%)

46 (79%)

  

119 (74%)

73 (72%)

43 (80%)

  

102 (75%)

90 (71%)

44 (77%)

  

Age, mean ± SD years

59.7 ± 10.9

57.1 ± 12.7

57.2 ± 11.6

0.09

0.14

60.0 ± 10.4

56.9 ± 13.0

56.2 ± 12.6

0.042

0.030

60.9 ± 9.9

56.5 ± 12.8

55.0 ± 12.2

0.002

0.002

Relation informal caregiver – patienta, n (%)

   

0.09

0.58

   

0.25

0.93

   

0.09

0.26

 Partner

151 (89%)

68 (77%)

48 (83%)

  

140 (87%)

79 (80%)

46 (85%)

  

121 (89%)

98 (79%)

46 (81%)

  

 Daughter/son

16 (9%)

15 (17%)

7 (12%)

  

15 (9%)

16 (16%)

6 (11%)

  

11 (8%)

20 (16%)

7 (12%)

  

 Other (i.e. sibling, ex-partner)friend,

5 (3%)

5 (6%)

3 (5%)

  

6 (4%)

4 (4%)

2 (4%)

  

4 (3%)

6 (5%)

4 (7%)

  
  1. Informal caregivers with PROMs data or biobank samples may have missing data on specific components of the assessment. Results on the representativeness of data for a specific research question may thus differ from above results. Groups were compared using chi square tests, unless otherwise specified. Significant p-values (p < 0.05) were printed in bold
  2. aMissing in two informal caregivers
  3. Abbreviations: PROMs patient-reported outcome measure, SD standard deviation