Skip to main content

Table 8 Rating Camp COOL: frequency (%) of respondents agreeing or totally agreeing with the statements; mean(±SD) for overall score

From: Effective peer-to-peer support for young people with end-stage renal disease: a mixed methods evaluation of Camp COOL

 

R* (n = 24) outcomes

T0* (n = 32) expectations

T1* (n = 32) outcomes

I expect (T0) / found (R and T1) CC to positively influence my:

   

Dealing with physical limitations

9 (37.5)**

21 (65.6)

21 (65.6)**

Attitude toward illness

11 (45.8)***

19 (59.4)

24 (75.0)***

Healthier living

4 (16.7)

8 (25.0)

12 (37.5)

Knowledge of the condition

9 (37.5)**

20 (62.5)

18 (56.3)**

Independence

7 (29.2)

21 (65.6)

16 (50.0)

Self-confidence

11 (45.8)

16 (50.0)

16 (50.0)

Ability to socially interact

10 (41.7)

12 (37.6)

16 (50.0)

Insight into what the transition to adult care holds

10 (43.5)1

19 (61.3)1

18 (51.3)

Being prepared for transition to adult care

7 (30.4)1

15 (62.5)5

12 (52.2)1

Assertiveness

8 (33.3)1

11 (35.5)1

14 (43.8)

The value of buddy-to-attendee support (yes):

   

As an attendant, I appreciated having a buddy

10 (91.0)2

 

12 (85.7)6

As an attendant, I learned the most from my buddy

5 (45.5)2

 

8 (57.2)6

As a buddy, I learned more during CC than I did as attendant

2 (28.6)3

 

8 (57.1)4

As a buddy, I would recommend being a buddy to others

8 (80.0)4

 

15 (93.8)7

Overall score for CC[1–10]^

8.0 (±1.2)

 

8.9 (±.82)1

  1. *R = retrospective; T0 = pre camp; T1 = post camp.
  2. ^Theoretical range.
  3. **p < .05; Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (independent) for differences between R and T1 (at mean level).
  4. ***p < .01; Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (independent) for differences between R and T1 (at mean level).
  5. Missing values: 1n = 1, 2n = 13 (attendees only), 3n = 17 (buddies only), 4n = 14 (buddies only), 5n = 8, 6n = 18 (attendees only), 7n = 16 (buddies only).