Finally, initial reaction to the questionnaire and whether they had read it more than once was also collected. Outcomes were measured at baseline and one week following receipt of the intervention. At baseline, questionnaires were completed at

the participants’ homes during an interview with the research coordinator. Follow up was by telephone interview with the same coordinator. Self-reported socio-demographic variables, health status variables and prescription details were collected at baseline. Participant characteristics were summarized using means with standard deviations for continuous data and percentages for categorical data. The number of participants reporting increased risk perceptions one week after the intervention was reported as a proportion of all participants. To examine potential differences in the baseline characteristics of participants LGK-974 chemical structure who perceived increased risk versus Caspase-dependent apoptosis those who did not, group comparisons were conducted. There were few missing baseline data (n = 0–5 per variable), which were replaced by the mean group value. To determine whether a change in knowledge or beliefs explained changes in risk perception

as a result of receiving the educational intervention, changes in knowledge and beliefs from pre- to post-intervention were computed for each individual, as well as within and between groups of individuals who reported increased risk perceptions versus those who did not. Correct knowledge pre- and post-intervention was reported as the proportion of individuals endorsing the correct answer for each question. A sub-analysis among participants with potential Glutathione peroxidase for

change, denoted by CAIA, or Change in the Answer from an Incorrect Answer, was also conducted to determine change in knowledge among participants who initially answered a question incorrectly, but subsequently changed to the correct answer at 1-week follow-up. Participants with correct answers at both time-points were thus excluded from the CAIA measure, as there was no potential for cognitive dissonance. An overall score for knowledge was computed as the sum of correct answers (0–4 range). A change in belief was measured by comparing the BMQ-specific-necessity score, specific-concern score and necessity-concern differentials both within and between the increased risk and no increased risk group. Participants who had evidence of both a change in knowledge and a change in beliefs were denoted as having experienced cognitive dissonance. Self-efficacy scores for discontinuing benzodiazepines were compared both within and between RISK groups from baseline to post intervention, as were responses to the query about self-efficacy for tapering benzodiazepines. Participants with missing data for any of the BMQ-specific variables (n = 3) or the self-efficacy variables (n = 7–8) were withdrawn from these analyses.