Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-8 | Page 26

www.medicaljournals.se/jrm regression (–0.72 to 1.50) d 0.742 43 < 0.001 (29.5) (0.89) T2 Compared with baseline, the proportion of participants reporting normal mood statistically significantly in- creased in both the intervention and control groups at 6 months. In contrast to our hypothesis, this study fai- led to demonstrate that a dialogue-based intervention promoted psychosocial well-being in the intervention group compared with the control group. Main findings DISCUSSION Thirty-seven participants (22.3%) in the intervention group and 36 (23.1%) in the control group reported depression at 6 months (Yale). Compared with those at T1, the intervention group had 8 more participants (4.9%) who reported depression, while the control group had 7 fewer participants (5.4%) who reported depression. After controlling for the baseline characteristics, the logistic regression model for depression (Yale) showed no benefit of the intervention over usual care at T2 (OR: 1.248, 95% CI: 0.64–2.41, p = 0.507). By separately exploring the results for the interven- tion and control groups, it was found that depression at T1 statistically significantly increased the odds of depression at T2 for both the intervention (OR: 5.054 95% CI: 1.73–14.74, p = 0.003) and the control group (OR: 8.965 95% CI: 2.79–28.72, p = 0.001) at 6 months. Table II shows that the physical domain score on the SAQOL-39g changed significantly from T1 to T2 for both the intervention and control groups. After controlling for the baseline characteristics in the multiple linear regression model, the analysis sho- wed no benefit favouring the intervention over usual care on the SAQOL-39g mean score (B = –0.026, CI: –0.13–0.08, p = 0.637) at 6 months. Table II lists the subdomain statistics. When the intervention and control group results were explored separately, it was found that the T1 SAQOL-39g score was a predictor of the T2 SAQOL- 39g score in both the intervention (B = 0.380, CI: 0.08–0.67, p = 0.015) and control group (B = 0.464, CI: 0.29–0.63, p < 0.001) at T2. For the intervention group, the NIHSS scoring predicted the T2 SAQOL-39g score (B =–0.030, CI: –0.51 ao –0.01, p < 0.004) and for the control group, the SOC-13 (B =0.013, CI: 0.01–0.02, p < 0.034) predicted the SAQOL-39g score. Table II shows that the mean sum score on the SOC- 13 did not change significantly from T1 to T2 in the in- tervention or control group, and that the between-group difference at 6 months was not statistically significant. Secondary outcomes E. Gabrielsen Hjelle et al. 562