OT Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 155 | 77 | 78 |
2nd | 141 | 75 | 66 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1551 | control, N = 771 | treatment, N = 781 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 155 | 47.75 ± 13.54 (20 - 77) | 49.10 ± 14.25 (20 - 74) | 46.42 ± 12.76 (22 - 77) | 0.218 |
gender | 155 | 0.890 | |||
female | 116 (75%) | 58 (75%) | 58 (74%) | ||
male | 39 (25%) | 19 (25%) | 20 (26%) | ||
occupation | 155 | 0.726 | |||
civil | 3 (1.9%) | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (1.3%) | ||
clerk | 16 (10%) | 6 (7.8%) | 10 (13%) | ||
craft | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
homemaker | 14 (9.0%) | 7 (9.1%) | 7 (9.0%) | ||
manager | 2 (1.3%) | 2 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
other | 31 (20%) | 19 (25%) | 12 (15%) | ||
professional | 3 (1.9%) | 1 (1.3%) | 2 (2.6%) | ||
retired | 33 (21%) | 17 (22%) | 16 (21%) | ||
service | 10 (6.5%) | 4 (5.2%) | 6 (7.7%) | ||
student | 3 (1.9%) | 1 (1.3%) | 2 (2.6%) | ||
unemploy | 39 (25%) | 17 (22%) | 22 (28%) | ||
marital | 155 | 0.310 | |||
divorced | 20 (13%) | 6 (7.8%) | 14 (18%) | ||
married | 34 (22%) | 18 (23%) | 16 (21%) | ||
other | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.3%) | ||
single | 96 (62%) | 51 (66%) | 45 (58%) | ||
widowed | 4 (2.6%) | 2 (2.6%) | 2 (2.6%) | ||
education | 155 | 0.597 | |||
post-secondary | 40 (26%) | 23 (30%) | 17 (22%) | ||
primary | 3 (1.9%) | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (1.3%) | ||
secondary | 68 (44%) | 32 (42%) | 36 (46%) | ||
university | 44 (28%) | 20 (26%) | 24 (31%) | ||
family_income | 155 | 0.532 | |||
0_10000 | 76 (49%) | 39 (51%) | 37 (47%) | ||
10001_20000 | 43 (28%) | 19 (25%) | 24 (31%) | ||
20001_30000 | 17 (11%) | 9 (12%) | 8 (10%) | ||
30001_40000 | 7 (4.5%) | 2 (2.6%) | 5 (6.4%) | ||
40000_above | 12 (7.7%) | 8 (10%) | 4 (5.1%) | ||
religion | 155 | 0.856 | |||
buddhism | 10 (6.5%) | 4 (5.2%) | 6 (7.7%) | ||
catholic | 5 (3.2%) | 2 (2.6%) | 3 (3.8%) | ||
christianity | 79 (51%) | 41 (53%) | 38 (49%) | ||
nil | 60 (39%) | 29 (38%) | 31 (40%) | ||
taoism | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
source | 155 | 0.620 | |||
bokss | 85 (55%) | 44 (57%) | 41 (53%) | ||
26 (17%) | 12 (16%) | 14 (18%) | |||
2 (1.3%) | 2 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | |||
other | 18 (12%) | 7 (9.1%) | 11 (14%) | ||
refresh | 24 (15%) | 12 (16%) | 12 (15%) | ||
diagnosis_type | 155 | 0.842 | |||
anxiety | 27 (17%) | 16 (21%) | 11 (14%) | ||
bipolar | 16 (10%) | 7 (9.1%) | 9 (12%) | ||
depression | 51 (33%) | 25 (32%) | 26 (33%) | ||
other | 20 (13%) | 9 (12%) | 11 (14%) | ||
psychosis | 41 (26%) | 20 (26%) | 21 (27%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1551 | control, N = 771 | treatment, N = 781 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
fse | 155 | 17.68 ± 4.19 (9 - 30) | 17.69 ± 4.02 (10 - 30) | 17.67 ± 4.38 (9 - 28) | 0.974 |
fa | 155 | 23.95 ± 3.55 (12 - 30) | 23.34 ± 3.73 (12 - 30) | 24.56 ± 3.28 (16 - 30) | 0.031 |
fb | 155 | 18.31 ± 5.28 (6 - 30) | 17.95 ± 4.70 (8 - 30) | 18.67 ± 5.81 (6 - 29) | 0.399 |
fwb | 155 | 45.26 ± 10.78 (14 - 86) | 45.30 ± 9.38 (14 - 69) | 45.22 ± 12.06 (14 - 86) | 0.963 |
who | 155 | 9.83 ± 4.79 (0 - 25) | 9.48 ± 4.33 (0 - 24) | 10.18 ± 5.22 (0 - 25) | 0.366 |
phq | 155 | 9.84 ± 6.44 (0 - 25) | 9.53 ± 6.53 (0 - 25) | 10.14 ± 6.38 (0 - 24) | 0.558 |
gad | 155 | 8.37 ± 6.41 (0 - 21) | 8.45 ± 6.48 (0 - 21) | 8.29 ± 6.37 (0 - 21) | 0.877 |
nb_pcs | 155 | 41.22 ± 9.73 (14 - 63) | 41.67 ± 9.75 (19 - 63) | 40.78 ± 9.76 (14 - 63) | 0.572 |
nb_mcs | 155 | 40.83 ± 12.44 (12 - 68) | 40.73 ± 12.20 (12 - 68) | 40.93 ± 12.76 (13 - 67) | 0.924 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
fse | (Intercept) | 17.731 | 0.454 | 16.841, 18.622 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.107 | 0.638 | -1.357, 1.143 | 0.866 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.235 | 0.409 | -1.037, 0.567 | 0.567 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.027 | 0.595 | 0.861, 3.194 | 0.001 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
fa | (Intercept) | 23.417 | 0.457 | 22.520, 24.313 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.069 | 0.645 | -0.194, 2.332 | 0.098 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.225 | 0.576 | -0.904, 1.354 | 0.697 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.352 | 0.831 | -1.276, 1.981 | 0.672 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
fb | (Intercept) | 18.305 | 0.631 | 17.069, 19.541 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.009 | 0.884 | -1.725, 1.742 | 0.992 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.856 | 0.544 | -0.211, 1.923 | 0.118 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.048 | 0.792 | -0.504, 2.600 | 0.188 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
fwb | (Intercept) | 45.384 | 1.248 | 42.938, 47.829 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.249 | 1.743 | -3.665, 3.167 | 0.886 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.401 | 0.925 | -0.412, 3.214 | 0.132 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.394 | 1.349 | -0.249, 5.037 | 0.078 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 9.745 | 0.549 | 8.669, 10.822 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.173 | 0.769 | -1.335, 1.680 | 0.823 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.303 | 0.435 | -0.549, 1.155 | 0.486 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.893 | 0.633 | -0.348, 2.134 | 0.161 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 9.685 | 0.715 | 8.283, 11.087 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.305 | 0.998 | -1.650, 2.260 | 0.760 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.415 | 0.499 | -2.393, -0.437 | 0.005 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.875 | 0.728 | -2.302, 0.551 | 0.231 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 8.627 | 0.715 | 7.226, 10.028 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.503 | 0.993 | -2.450, 1.444 | 0.613 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.382 | 0.456 | -1.276, 0.513 | 0.404 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.399 | 0.666 | -2.704, -0.093 | 0.038 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 41.732 | 1.104 | 39.569, 43.895 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.016 | 1.544 | -4.042, 2.010 | 0.511 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.634 | 0.853 | -1.037, 2.305 | 0.459 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.705 | 1.242 | -0.731, 4.140 | 0.172 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 40.626 | 1.366 | 37.949, 43.302 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.407 | 1.904 | -3.324, 4.138 | 0.831 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.827 | 0.946 | -1.028, 2.682 | 0.384 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.567 | 1.380 | -2.138, 3.273 | 0.682 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
fse
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict fse with group and time_point (formula: fse ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st , is at 17.73 (S.E. = 0.45, p < .001, 95% CI [16.84, 18.62]). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, S.E. = 0.64, p = 0.866, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.14]; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, S.E. = 0.41, p = 0.566, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.57]; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, S.E. = 0.59, p < .001, 95% CI [0.86, 3.19]; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.21, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
fa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict fa with group and time_point (formula: fa ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.24) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st , is at 23.42 (S.E. = 0.46, p < .001, 95% CI [22.52, 24.31]). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, S.E. = 0.64, p = 0.097, 95% CI [-0.19, 2.33]; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, S.E. = 0.58, p = 0.696, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.35]; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, S.E. = 0.83, p = 0.672, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.98]; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
fb
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict fb with group and time_point (formula: fb ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st , is at 18.31 (S.E. = 0.63, p < .001, 95% CI [17.07, 19.54]). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 8.76e-03, S.E. = 0.88, p = 0.992, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.74]; Std. beta = 1.56e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, S.E. = 0.54, p = 0.116, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.92]; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, S.E. = 0.79, p = 0.186, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.60]; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
fwb
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict fwb with group and time_point (formula: fwb ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st , is at 45.38 (S.E. = 1.25, p < .001, 95% CI [42.94, 47.83]). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, S.E. = 1.74, p = 0.886, 95% CI [-3.67, 3.17]; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, S.E. = 0.93, p = 0.130, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.21]; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.39, S.E. = 1.35, p = 0.076, 95% CI [-0.25, 5.04]; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st , is at 9.75 (S.E. = 0.55, p < .001, 95% CI [8.67, 10.82]). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, S.E. = 0.77, p = 0.822, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.68]; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, S.E. = 0.43, p = 0.485, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.16]; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, S.E. = 0.63, p = 0.158, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.13]; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st , is at 9.69 (S.E. = 0.72, p < .001, 95% CI [8.28, 11.09]). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, S.E. = 1.00, p = 0.760, 95% CI [-1.65, 2.26]; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.41, S.E. = 0.50, p = 0.005, 95% CI [-2.39, -0.44]; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.38, -0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, S.E. = 0.73, p = 0.229, 95% CI [-2.30, 0.55]; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st , is at 8.63 (S.E. = 0.71, p < .001, 95% CI [7.23, 10.03]). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, S.E. = 0.99, p = 0.612, 95% CI [-2.45, 1.44]; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, S.E. = 0.46, p = 0.403, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.51]; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.40, S.E. = 0.67, p = 0.036, 95% CI [-2.70, -0.09]; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.43, -0.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st , is at 41.73 (S.E. = 1.10, p < .001, 95% CI [39.57, 43.90]). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, S.E. = 1.54, p = 0.511, 95% CI [-4.04, 2.01]; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, S.E. = 0.85, p = 0.457, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.31]; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, S.E. = 1.24, p = 0.170, 95% CI [-0.73, 4.14]; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st , is at 40.63 (S.E. = 1.37, p < .001, 95% CI [37.95, 43.30]). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, S.E. = 1.90, p = 0.831, 95% CI [-3.32, 4.14]; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, S.E. = 0.95, p = 0.382, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.68]; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, S.E. = 1.38, p = 0.681, 95% CI [-2.14, 3.27]; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
fse | null | 3 | 1,617.352 | 1,628.424 | -805.676 | 1,611.352 | |||
fse | random | 6 | 1,604.497 | 1,626.639 | -796.249 | 1,592.497 | 18.855 | 3 | 0.000 |
fa | null | 3 | 1,664.364 | 1,675.435 | -829.182 | 1,658.364 | |||
fa | random | 6 | 1,663.822 | 1,685.964 | -825.911 | 1,651.822 | 6.542 | 3 | 0.088 |
fb | null | 3 | 1,797.015 | 1,808.086 | -895.507 | 1,791.015 | |||
fb | random | 6 | 1,789.583 | 1,811.725 | -888.791 | 1,777.583 | 13.432 | 3 | 0.004 |
fwb | null | 3 | 2,170.610 | 2,181.681 | -1,082.305 | 2,164.610 | |||
fwb | random | 6 | 2,159.757 | 2,181.899 | -1,073.878 | 2,147.757 | 16.853 | 3 | 0.001 |
who | null | 3 | 1,690.808 | 1,701.879 | -842.404 | 1,684.808 | |||
who | random | 6 | 1,688.960 | 1,711.102 | -838.480 | 1,676.960 | 7.848 | 3 | 0.049 |
phq | null | 3 | 1,835.038 | 1,846.109 | -914.519 | 1,829.038 | |||
phq | random | 6 | 1,816.371 | 1,838.513 | -902.185 | 1,804.371 | 24.667 | 3 | 0.000 |
gad | null | 3 | 1,803.955 | 1,815.026 | -898.978 | 1,797.955 | |||
gad | random | 6 | 1,794.895 | 1,817.038 | -891.448 | 1,782.895 | 15.060 | 3 | 0.002 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 2,097.782 | 2,108.853 | -1,045.891 | 2,091.782 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 6 | 2,096.603 | 2,118.745 | -1,042.301 | 2,084.603 | 7.179 | 3 | 0.066 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 2,194.328 | 2,205.399 | -1,094.164 | 2,188.328 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 6 | 2,197.498 | 2,219.640 | -1,092.749 | 2,185.498 | 2.831 | 3 | 0.419 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
fse | 1st | 77 | 17.73 ± 3.99 | 78 | 17.62 ± 3.99 | 0.867 | 0.043 | ||
fse | 2nd | 75 | 17.50 ± 3.97 | 0.093 | 66 | 19.42 ± 3.86 | -0.714 | 0.004 | -0.764 |
fa | 1st | 77 | 23.42 ± 4.01 | 78 | 24.49 ± 4.01 | 0.098 | -0.302 | ||
fa | 2nd | 75 | 23.64 ± 4.01 | -0.063 | 66 | 25.06 ± 4.00 | -0.163 | 0.036 | -0.401 |
fb | 1st | 77 | 18.31 ± 5.54 | 78 | 18.31 ± 5.54 | 0.992 | -0.003 | ||
fb | 2nd | 75 | 19.16 ± 5.51 | -0.256 | 66 | 20.22 ± 5.34 | -0.570 | 0.245 | -0.316 |
fwb | 1st | 77 | 45.38 ± 10.95 | 78 | 45.13 ± 10.96 | 0.887 | 0.044 | ||
fwb | 2nd | 75 | 46.78 ± 10.88 | -0.247 | 66 | 48.93 ± 10.44 | -0.669 | 0.228 | -0.378 |
who | 1st | 77 | 9.75 ± 4.82 | 78 | 9.92 ± 4.82 | 0.823 | -0.065 | ||
who | 2nd | 75 | 10.05 ± 4.79 | -0.114 | 66 | 11.11 ± 4.62 | -0.449 | 0.176 | -0.400 |
phq | 1st | 77 | 9.69 ± 6.28 | 78 | 9.99 ± 6.28 | 0.760 | -0.100 | ||
phq | 2nd | 75 | 8.27 ± 6.23 | 0.462 | 66 | 7.70 ± 5.96 | 0.748 | 0.574 | 0.186 |
gad | 1st | 77 | 8.63 ± 6.28 | 78 | 8.12 ± 6.28 | 0.614 | 0.180 | ||
gad | 2nd | 75 | 8.25 ± 6.22 | 0.136 | 66 | 6.34 ± 5.92 | 0.636 | 0.060 | 0.680 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 77 | 41.73 ± 9.69 | 78 | 40.72 ± 9.69 | 0.512 | 0.194 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 75 | 42.37 ± 9.63 | -0.121 | 66 | 43.05 ± 9.26 | -0.447 | 0.662 | -0.132 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 77 | 40.63 ± 11.99 | 78 | 41.03 ± 11.99 | 0.831 | -0.070 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 75 | 41.45 ± 11.90 | -0.143 | 66 | 42.43 ± 11.37 | -0.240 | 0.615 | -0.168 |
Between group
fse
1st
t(228.49) = -0.17, p = 0.867, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.15)
2st
t(245.07) = 2.93, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.63 to 3.21)
fa
1st
t(280.43) = 1.66, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.34)
2st
t(285.83) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.75)
fb
1st
t(224.14) = 0.01, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.74 to 1.75)
2st
t(240.62) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.84)
fwb
1st
t(213.25) = -0.14, p = 0.887, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-3.69 to 3.19)
2st
t(228.13) = 1.21, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.35 to 5.64)
who
1st
t(217.01) = 0.22, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.69)
2st
t(232.76) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.61)
phq
1st
t(210.79) = 0.31, p = 0.760, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.27)
2st
t(224.71) = -0.56, p = 0.574, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.57 to 1.43)
gad
1st
t(208.98) = -0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.46 to 1.46)
2st
t(221.43) = -1.89, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-3.88 to 0.08)
nb_pcs
1st
t(215.49) = -0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-4.06 to 2.03)
2st
t(230.94) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-2.41 to 3.79)
nb_mcs
1st
t(210.58) = 0.21, p = 0.831, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.35 to 4.16)
2st
t(224.40) = 0.50, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.83 to 4.78)
Within treatment group
fse
1st vs 2st
t(147.54) = 4.15, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.94 to 2.65)
fa
1st vs 2st
t(154.43) = 0.96, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.76)
fb
1st vs 2st
t(146.88) = 3.31, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.77 to 3.04)
fwb
1st vs 2st
t(144.86) = 3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.85 to 5.74)
who
1st vs 2st
t(145.66) = 2.60, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.29 to 2.11)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(144.19) = -4.32, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.34 to -1.24)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(143.34) = -3.67, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.74 to -0.82)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(145.35) = 2.59, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.55 to 4.13)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(144.12) = 1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.38)
Within control group
fse
1st vs 2st
t(140.66) = -0.57, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.57)
fa
1st vs 2st
t(143.06) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.36)
fb
1st vs 2st
t(140.49) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.93)
fwb
1st vs 2st
t(139.98) = 1.51, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.23)
who
1st vs 2st
t(140.18) = 0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.16)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(139.82) = -2.84, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-2.40 to -0.43)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(139.63) = -0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.52)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(140.10) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.32)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(139.81) = 0.87, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.70)
Plot
