Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levelsCharacteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.814 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68) | 0.732 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.108 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.153 | -0.428, 0.172 | 0.404 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.023 | 0.130 | -0.233, 0.278 | 0.861 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.195 | 0.188 | -0.174, 0.564 | 0.301 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.269 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.380 | -0.825, 0.665 | 0.833 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.169 | 0.236 | -0.631, 0.293 | 0.475 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.03 | 0.342 | 0.365, 1.70 | 0.003 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.502 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.710 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.637 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.678 | 0.386 | -0.078, 1.43 | 0.080 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.09 | 0.560 | -0.006, 2.19 | 0.053 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.182 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.257 | -0.473, 0.537 | 0.901 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.033 | 0.168 | -0.297, 0.363 | 0.844 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.280 | 0.244 | -0.198, 0.759 | 0.252 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.291 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.412 | -0.463, 1.15 | 0.404 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.356 | 0.248 | -0.130, 0.843 | 0.152 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.468 | 0.360 | -0.237, 1.17 | 0.195 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.371 | -0.544, 0.912 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.353 | 0.200 | -0.039, 0.744 | 0.079 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.293 | 0.290 | -0.275, 0.861 | 0.313 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.213 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.301 | -0.982, 0.198 | 0.194 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.123 | 0.208 | -0.284, 0.531 | 0.553 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.762 | 0.301 | 0.172, 1.35 | 0.012 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.875 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.238 | -3.71, 1.14 | 0.299 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.50 | 0.621 | -2.71, -0.278 | 0.017 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.143 | 0.902 | -1.91, 1.62 | 0.874 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.409 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.578 | -1.14, 1.12 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.439 | 0.331 | -0.211, 1.09 | 0.187 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.058 | 0.481 | -0.884, 1.00 | 0.904 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.512 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.724 | -0.580, 2.26 | 0.247 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.486 | 0.399 | -0.297, 1.27 | 0.225 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.243 | 0.580 | -0.893, 1.38 | 0.675 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.641 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.907 | -0.409, 3.14 | 0.132 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.33 | 0.472 | 0.410, 2.26 | 0.005 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.011 | 0.685 | -1.35, 1.33 | 0.988 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.336 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.475 | -0.578, 1.28 | 0.459 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.447 | 0.246 | -0.035, 0.930 | 0.070 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.059 | 0.357 | -0.759, 0.641 | 0.869 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.543 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.768 | -1.50, 1.50 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.746 | 0.410 | -0.057, 1.55 | 0.070 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.466 | 0.595 | -0.700, 1.63 | 0.434 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.629 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.890 | -1.42, 2.06 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.13 | 0.454 | 0.243, 2.02 | 0.013 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.167 | 0.660 | -1.46, 1.13 | 0.801 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.387 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.547 | -0.312, 1.83 | 0.166 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.665 | 0.335 | 0.008, 1.32 | 0.049 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.481 | 0.486 | -0.471, 1.43 | 0.323 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.250 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.353 | 0.051, 1.44 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.013 | 0.197 | -0.398, 0.373 | 0.948 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.362 | 0.286 | -0.197, 0.922 | 0.206 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.284 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.401 | -0.394, 1.18 | 0.329 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.390 | 0.220 | -0.042, 0.821 | 0.078 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.265 | 0.320 | -0.361, 0.891 | 0.408 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.293 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.414 | -0.116, 1.51 | 0.094 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.378 | 0.213 | -0.040, 0.796 | 0.078 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.128 | 0.310 | -0.479, 0.735 | 0.680 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.536 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.757 | -0.397, 2.57 | 0.152 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.771 | 0.372 | 0.043, 1.50 | 0.039 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.403 | 0.540 | -0.654, 1.46 | 0.456 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.819 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.159 | -3.49, 1.06 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.859 | 0.596 | -2.03, 0.310 | 0.151 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.12 | 0.866 | -2.82, 0.576 | 0.197 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.444 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.627 | -0.222, 2.24 | 0.109 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.393 | 0.325 | -0.245, 1.03 | 0.229 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.467 | 0.473 | -0.459, 1.39 | 0.324 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.360 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.509 | 0.010, 2.01 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.619 | 0.285 | 0.060, 1.18 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.185 | 0.414 | -0.626, 0.997 | 0.655 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.765 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.082 | -0.105, 4.14 | 0.063 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 0.556 | -0.075, 2.10 | 0.069 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.659 | 0.807 | -0.924, 2.24 | 0.415 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.142 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.201 | -0.465, 0.321 | 0.720 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.126 | 0.151 | -0.422, 0.171 | 0.408 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.163 | 0.219 | -0.266, 0.593 | 0.456 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.308 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.436 | -0.134, 1.57 | 0.099 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.724 | 0.297 | 0.142, 1.31 | 0.016 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.827 | 0.430 | -1.67, 0.016 | 0.056 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.377 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.534 | -0.582, 1.51 | 0.385 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.645 | 0.318 | 0.023, 1.27 | 0.044 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.150 | 0.461 | -0.753, 1.05 | 0.745 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.615 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.870 | -0.522, 2.89 | 0.175 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.37 | 0.533 | 0.329, 2.42 | 0.011 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.669 | 0.772 | -2.18, 0.845 | 0.388 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.404 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.572 | -0.593, 1.65 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.876 | 0.315 | 0.258, 1.49 | 0.006 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.033 | 0.457 | -0.863, 0.930 | 0.942 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.222 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.314 | -0.622, 0.606 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.231 | 0.223 | -0.206, 0.668 | 0.301 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.419 | 0.323 | -0.213, 1.05 | 0.195 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.274 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.387 | -0.847, 0.671 | 0.820 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.407 | 0.261 | -0.919, 0.105 | 0.121 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.395 | 0.378 | -1.14, 0.346 | 0.297 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.325 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.459 | -0.676, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.306 | 0.239 | -0.774, 0.162 | 0.201 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.614 | 0.347 | -1.29, 0.066 | 0.078 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.333 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.470 | -1.00, 0.842 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.463 | 0.247 | -0.947, 0.021 | 0.062 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.278 | 0.359 | -0.981, 0.425 | 0.440 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.334 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.473 | -0.519, 1.33 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.245 | 0.244 | -0.722, 0.233 | 0.316 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.680 | 0.354 | -1.37, 0.013 | 0.056 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.935 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.322 | -2.04, 3.14 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.03 | 0.618 | -2.24, 0.179 | 0.096 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.52 | 0.898 | -3.28, 0.241 | 0.092 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(454) = 29.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(454) = -0.84, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.28], t(454) = 0.17, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.56], t(454) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.47])
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.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) 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 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(454) = 66.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.66], t(454) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.29], t(454) = -0.72, p = 0.474; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.36, 1.70], t(454) = 3.03, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.12, 0.57])
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.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). 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 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(454) = 59.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(454) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.43], t(454) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-6.26e-03, 2.19], t(454) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.12e-03, 0.39])
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.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.27, 11.98], t(454) = 63.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.54], t(454) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.36], t(454) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76], t(454) = 1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
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.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) 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 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(454) = 59.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(454) = 0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.84], t(454) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.17], t(454) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.36])
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.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). 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 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(454) = 50.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(454) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.74], t(454) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.86], t(454) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.29])
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.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) 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 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(454) = 46.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.20], t(454) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.53], t(454) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.17, 1.35], t(454) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [0.07, 0.57])
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.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) 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 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(454) = 35.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.71, 1.14], t(454) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-2.71, -0.28], t(454) = -2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.28, -0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.62], t(454) = -0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.17])
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.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). 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 2.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(454) = 53.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(454) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.09], t(454) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.00], t(454) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.22])
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.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(454) = 47.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(454) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.27], t(454) = 1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.38], t(454) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])
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.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) 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 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(454) = 30.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.14], t(454) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [0.41, 2.26], t(454) = 2.83, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.06, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.33], t(454) = -0.02, p = 0.988; Std. beta = -1.47e-03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.19])
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.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(454) = 31.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(454) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.93], t(454) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-9.35e-03, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.64], t(454) = -0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.17])
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.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(454) = 27.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.65e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(454) = 1.26e-12, p > .999; Std. beta = -3.27e-17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.55], t(454) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-9.58e-03, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.63], t(454) = 0.78, p = 0.433; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 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.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). 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 5.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(454) = 34.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(454) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [0.24, 2.02], t(454) = 2.50, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.04, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.13], t(454) = -0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.16])
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.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) 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 16.18 (95% CI [15.42, 16.93], t(454) = 41.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.83], t(454) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [8.10e-03, 1.32], t(454) = 1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [1.86e-03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.43], t(454) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])
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.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) 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 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(454) = 52.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(454) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.37], t(454) = -0.06, p = 0.948; Std. beta = -4.54e-03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.92], t(454) = 1.27, p = 0.205; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.33])
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.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) 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 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(454) = 59.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.18], t(454) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.82], t(454) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.89], t(454) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.28])
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.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). 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 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(454) = 42.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(454) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.80], t(454) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.73], t(454) = 0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.22])
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.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) 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 29.17 (95% CI [28.12, 30.22], t(454) = 54.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.57], t(454) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [0.04, 1.50], t(454) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [7.15e-03, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.46], t(454) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.24])
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.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). 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 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(454) = 34.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.06], t(454) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.31], t(454) = -1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.58], t(454) = -1.30, p = 0.195; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.06])
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.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) 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 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(454) = 31.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.24], t(454) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.03], t(454) = 1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.39], t(454) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.28])
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.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) 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 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.03], t(454) = 42.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [9.92e-03, 2.01], t(454) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.45e-03, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.06, 1.18], t(454) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [0.01, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.00], t(454) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.25])
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.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). 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 29.17 (95% CI [27.67, 30.67], t(454) = 38.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(454) = 1.86, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.08, 2.10], t(454) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-8.72e-03, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.92, 2.24], t(454) = 0.82, p = 0.415; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.26])
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.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.73e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(454) = 90.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(454) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.17], t(454) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.59], t(454) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.37])
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.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(454) = 46.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.57], t(454) = 1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [0.14, 1.31], t(454) = 2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.67, 0.02], t(454) = -1.92, p = 0.054; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.48, 4.50e-03])
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.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) 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 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(454) = 34.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(454) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.02, 1.27], t(454) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [5.34e-03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.05], t(454) = 0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])
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.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) 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 27.51 (95% CI [26.31, 28.72], t(454) = 44.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.89], t(454) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [0.33, 2.42], t(454) = 2.58, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.05, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.18, 0.85], t(454) = -0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.12])
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.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) 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 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(454) = 46.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(454) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.26, 1.49], t(454) = 2.78, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.06, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.93], t(454) = 0.07, p = 0.942; Std. beta = 7.47e-03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])
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.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) 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 14.36 (95% CI [13.93, 14.79], t(454) = 64.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.61], t(454) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.67], t(454) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.05], t(454) = 1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.43])
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.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) 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 11.79 (95% CI [11.26, 12.33], t(454) = 43.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(454) = -0.23, p = 0.820; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.10], t(454) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.35], t(454) = -1.05, p = 0.296; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.11])
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.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(454) = 32.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(454) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.16], t(454) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.07], t(454) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.02])
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.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(454) = 30.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(454) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.02], t(454) = -1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 5.69e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.43], t(454) = -0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.11])
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.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(454) = 26.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(454) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.23], t(454) = -1.01, p = 0.315; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.01], t(454) = -1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 3.57e-03])
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.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). 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 8.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(454) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(454) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.24, 0.18], t(454) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-3.28, 0.24], t(454) = -1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.02])
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,462.278 | 1,474.672 | -728.139 | 1,456.278 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,465.537 | 1,490.324 | -726.768 | 1,453.537 | 2.741 | 3 | 0.433 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,216.716 | 2,229.110 | -1,105.358 | 2,210.716 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,209.427 | 2,234.214 | -1,098.713 | 2,197.427 | 13.290 | 3 | 0.004 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,754.725 | 2,767.119 | -1,374.362 | 2,748.725 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,738.283 | 2,763.070 | -1,363.141 | 2,726.283 | 22.442 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,866.565 | 1,878.959 | -930.283 | 1,860.565 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,868.983 | 1,893.770 | -928.491 | 1,856.983 | 3.583 | 3 | 0.310 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,280.704 | 2,293.098 | -1,137.352 | 2,274.704 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,273.016 | 2,297.804 | -1,130.508 | 2,261.016 | 13.688 | 3 | 0.003 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,144.889 | 2,157.283 | -1,069.444 | 2,138.889 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,137.883 | 2,162.670 | -1,062.941 | 2,125.883 | 13.006 | 3 | 0.005 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 2,040.925 | 2,053.319 | -1,017.462 | 2,034.925 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 2,030.425 | 2,055.213 | -1,009.213 | 2,018.425 | 16.500 | 3 | 0.001 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,227.164 | 3,239.558 | -1,610.582 | 3,221.164 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,220.163 | 3,244.951 | -1,604.082 | 3,208.163 | 13.001 | 3 | 0.005 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,565.780 | 2,578.174 | -1,279.890 | 2,559.780 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,567.989 | 2,592.776 | -1,277.994 | 2,555.989 | 3.791 | 3 | 0.285 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,762.101 | 2,774.494 | -1,378.050 | 2,756.101 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,761.811 | 2,786.599 | -1,374.906 | 2,749.811 | 6.290 | 3 | 0.098 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,958.078 | 2,970.472 | -1,476.039 | 2,952.078 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,947.119 | 2,971.907 | -1,467.560 | 2,935.119 | 16.959 | 3 | 0.001 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,350.479 | 2,362.872 | -1,172.239 | 2,344.479 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,350.500 | 2,375.287 | -1,169.250 | 2,338.500 | 5.979 | 3 | 0.113 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,808.223 | 2,820.616 | -1,401.111 | 2,802.223 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,803.267 | 2,828.055 | -1,395.634 | 2,791.267 | 10.955 | 3 | 0.012 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,927.163 | 2,939.557 | -1,460.581 | 2,921.163 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,923.026 | 2,947.813 | -1,455.513 | 2,911.026 | 10.137 | 3 | 0.017 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,551.928 | 2,564.321 | -1,272.964 | 2,545.928 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,540.300 | 2,565.088 | -1,264.150 | 2,528.300 | 17.628 | 3 | 0.001 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,109.090 | 2,121.484 | -1,051.545 | 2,103.090 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,105.014 | 2,129.801 | -1,046.507 | 2,093.014 | 10.076 | 3 | 0.018 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,222.954 | 2,235.348 | -1,108.477 | 2,216.954 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,216.421 | 2,241.209 | -1,102.211 | 2,204.421 | 12.533 | 3 | 0.006 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,228.159 | 2,240.552 | -1,111.079 | 2,222.159 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,222.564 | 2,247.351 | -1,105.282 | 2,210.564 | 11.594 | 3 | 0.009 |
els | null | 3 | 2,769.771 | 2,782.164 | -1,381.885 | 2,763.771 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,759.950 | 2,784.737 | -1,373.975 | 2,747.950 | 15.821 | 3 | 0.001 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,177.073 | 3,189.466 | -1,585.536 | 3,171.073 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 3,169.006 | 3,193.793 | -1,578.503 | 3,157.006 | 14.067 | 3 | 0.003 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,613.039 | 2,625.433 | -1,303.520 | 2,607.039 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,607.449 | 2,632.237 | -1,297.725 | 2,595.449 | 11.590 | 3 | 0.009 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,453.852 | 2,466.245 | -1,223.926 | 2,447.852 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,443.287 | 2,468.074 | -1,215.644 | 2,431.287 | 16.565 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 3,115.416 | 3,127.810 | -1,554.708 | 3,109.416 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 3,105.406 | 3,130.193 | -1,546.703 | 3,093.406 | 16.010 | 3 | 0.001 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,677.491 | 1,689.885 | -835.746 | 1,671.491 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,682.740 | 1,707.527 | -835.370 | 1,670.740 | 0.751 | 3 | 0.861 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,366.592 | 2,378.986 | -1,180.296 | 2,360.592 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,365.785 | 2,390.573 | -1,176.893 | 2,353.785 | 6.807 | 3 | 0.078 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,512.218 | 2,524.611 | -1,253.109 | 2,506.218 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,507.569 | 2,532.356 | -1,247.784 | 2,495.569 | 10.649 | 3 | 0.014 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,970.436 | 2,982.830 | -1,482.218 | 2,964.436 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,967.179 | 2,991.966 | -1,477.589 | 2,955.179 | 9.258 | 3 | 0.026 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,553.768 | 2,566.162 | -1,273.884 | 2,547.768 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,544.062 | 2,568.849 | -1,266.031 | 2,532.062 | 15.707 | 3 | 0.001 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 2,079.365 | 2,091.758 | -1,036.682 | 2,073.365 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 2,076.333 | 2,101.121 | -1,032.167 | 2,064.333 | 9.031 | 3 | 0.029 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,259.270 | 2,271.664 | -1,126.635 | 2,253.270 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,253.944 | 2,278.731 | -1,120.972 | 2,241.944 | 11.326 | 3 | 0.010 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,329.544 | 2,341.937 | -1,161.772 | 2,323.544 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,320.791 | 2,345.578 | -1,154.395 | 2,308.791 | 14.753 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,352.544 | 2,364.938 | -1,173.272 | 2,346.544 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,346.906 | 2,371.693 | -1,167.453 | 2,334.906 | 11.638 | 3 | 0.009 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,352.435 | 2,364.829 | -1,173.218 | 2,346.435 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,344.588 | 2,369.375 | -1,166.294 | 2,332.588 | 13.847 | 3 | 0.003 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,265.910 | 3,278.303 | -1,629.955 | 3,259.910 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,254.256 | 3,279.043 | -1,621.128 | 3,242.256 | 17.654 | 3 | 0.001 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.21 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.21 | 0.404 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 111 | 3.22 ± 1.20 | -0.023 | 99 | 3.29 ± 1.20 | -0.220 | 0.686 | -0.068 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.00 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.00 | 0.833 | 0.045 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 111 | 17.71 ± 2.93 | 0.095 | 99 | 18.67 ± 2.87 | -0.488 | 0.018 | -0.538 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.62 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.62 | 0.637 | -0.116 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 111 | 30.37 ± 5.44 | -0.234 | 99 | 31.79 ± 5.29 | -0.611 | 0.055 | -0.493 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.04 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.04 | 0.901 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 111 | 11.66 ± 1.99 | -0.026 | 99 | 11.97 ± 1.96 | -0.247 | 0.253 | -0.246 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.25 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.25 | 0.404 | -0.184 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 111 | 17.54 ± 3.17 | -0.191 | 99 | 18.35 ± 3.10 | -0.442 | 0.062 | -0.435 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.123 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 111 | 13.50 ± 2.84 | -0.235 | 99 | 13.97 ± 2.76 | -0.431 | 0.219 | -0.318 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.38 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.38 | 0.194 | 0.250 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 111 | 10.08 ± 2.34 | -0.079 | 99 | 10.45 ± 2.30 | -0.565 | 0.249 | -0.236 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.78 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.78 | 0.299 | 0.277 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 111 | 30.00 ± 9.45 | 0.321 | 99 | 28.57 ± 9.16 | 0.352 | 0.266 | 0.307 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 111 | 22.50 ± 4.44 | -0.176 | 99 | 22.55 ± 4.33 | -0.199 | 0.934 | -0.020 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.73 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.73 | 0.247 | -0.280 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 111 | 24.99 ± 5.56 | -0.162 | 99 | 26.07 ± 5.41 | -0.243 | 0.153 | -0.361 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.17 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.17 | 0.132 | -0.387 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 111 | 21.00 ± 6.93 | -0.377 | 99 | 22.36 ± 6.73 | -0.374 | 0.151 | -0.384 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.75 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.75 | 0.459 | -0.191 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 111 | 11.10 ± 3.63 | -0.242 | 99 | 11.39 ± 3.52 | -0.211 | 0.553 | -0.159 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.07 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.07 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 111 | 15.87 ± 5.88 | -0.243 | 99 | 16.34 ± 5.71 | -0.394 | 0.561 | -0.152 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.03 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.03 | 0.719 | -0.094 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 111 | 22.69 ± 6.80 | -0.333 | 99 | 22.84 ± 6.59 | -0.284 | 0.868 | -0.045 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.32 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.32 | 0.166 | -0.301 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 111 | 16.84 ± 4.22 | -0.264 | 99 | 18.08 ± 4.12 | -0.455 | 0.032 | -0.492 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.79 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.79 | 0.036 | -0.504 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 111 | 13.16 ± 2.71 | 0.009 | 99 | 14.26 ± 2.64 | -0.237 | 0.003 | -0.749 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.17 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.17 | 0.329 | -0.237 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 111 | 17.15 ± 3.08 | -0.236 | 99 | 17.81 ± 2.99 | -0.396 | 0.118 | -0.397 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.27 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.27 | 0.094 | -0.435 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 111 | 12.79 ± 3.17 | -0.236 | 99 | 13.61 ± 3.07 | -0.316 | 0.057 | -0.515 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 5.99 | 125 | 30.26 ± 5.99 | 0.152 | -0.391 | ||
els | 2nd | 111 | 29.94 ± 5.78 | -0.277 | 99 | 31.43 ± 5.59 | -0.422 | 0.059 | -0.535 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.16 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.16 | 0.295 | 0.272 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 111 | 27.02 ± 8.86 | 0.192 | 99 | 24.68 ± 8.59 | 0.443 | 0.053 | 0.523 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 4.96 | 125 | 14.85 ± 4.96 | 0.109 | -0.413 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 111 | 14.23 ± 4.80 | -0.161 | 99 | 15.71 ± 4.66 | -0.352 | 0.025 | -0.604 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.03 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.03 | 0.049 | -0.470 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 111 | 15.95 ± 3.91 | -0.289 | 99 | 17.14 ± 3.81 | -0.376 | 0.026 | -0.557 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.56 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.56 | 0.063 | -0.484 | ||
shs | 2nd | 111 | 30.18 ± 8.27 | -0.243 | 99 | 32.86 ± 8.02 | -0.401 | 0.018 | -0.641 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.59 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.59 | 0.720 | 0.063 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 111 | 12.67 ± 1.57 | 0.110 | 99 | 12.77 ± 1.55 | -0.033 | 0.671 | -0.080 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.44 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.44 | 0.099 | -0.322 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 111 | 15.08 ± 3.38 | -0.323 | 99 | 14.98 ± 3.32 | 0.046 | 0.817 | 0.048 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.22 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.22 | 0.385 | -0.194 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 111 | 13.80 ± 4.11 | -0.270 | 99 | 14.41 ± 4.01 | -0.333 | 0.274 | -0.257 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.88 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.88 | 0.175 | -0.296 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 111 | 28.89 ± 6.71 | -0.343 | 99 | 29.40 ± 6.56 | -0.176 | 0.574 | -0.129 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.52 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.52 | 0.357 | -0.223 | ||
empower | 2nd | 111 | 19.72 ± 4.39 | -0.370 | 99 | 20.29 ± 4.27 | -0.384 | 0.348 | -0.237 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.48 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.48 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 111 | 14.59 ± 2.44 | -0.137 | 99 | 15.00 ± 2.40 | -0.386 | 0.220 | -0.244 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.06 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.06 | 0.820 | 0.045 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 111 | 11.39 ± 3.00 | 0.207 | 99 | 10.90 ± 2.95 | 0.408 | 0.241 | 0.246 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.63 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.63 | 0.626 | -0.125 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 111 | 10.09 ± 3.51 | 0.171 | 99 | 9.70 ± 3.41 | 0.514 | 0.415 | 0.218 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.72 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.72 | 0.865 | 0.043 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 111 | 9.71 ± 3.60 | 0.250 | 99 | 9.36 ± 3.49 | 0.400 | 0.466 | 0.193 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.389 | -0.223 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 111 | 8.47 ± 3.61 | 0.134 | 99 | 8.20 ± 3.51 | 0.506 | 0.581 | 0.149 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.45 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.45 | 0.677 | -0.119 | ||
sss | 2nd | 111 | 28.26 ± 10.07 | 0.223 | 99 | 27.29 ± 9.72 | 0.551 | 0.480 | 0.209 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(414.51) = -0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
2st
t(436.00) = 0.40, p = 0.686, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.39)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(332.13) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(371.80) = 2.38, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.74)
ras_confidence
1st
t(310.32) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.73)
2st
t(346.66) = 1.92, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.03 to 2.89)
ras_willingness
1st
t(342.78) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.54)
2st
t(382.59) = 1.14, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.85)
ras_goal
1st
t(326.75) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)
2st
t(365.99) = 1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.66)
ras_reliance
1st
t(308.96) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.91)
2st
t(344.95) = 1.23, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.24)
ras_domination
1st
t(355.09) = -1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.20)
2st
t(394.00) = 1.15, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.00)
symptom
1st
t(300.28) = -1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.15)
2st
t(333.58) = -1.11, p = 0.266, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.96 to 1.10)
slof_work
1st
t(318.37) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)
2st
t(356.44) = 0.08, p = 0.934, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.24)
slof_relationship
1st
t(312.42) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(349.27) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.57)
satisfaction
1st
t(304.64) = 1.51, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)
2st
t(339.39) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.50 to 3.21)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(304.17) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)
2st
t(338.77) = 0.59, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.26)
mhc_social
1st
t(307.95) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(343.66) = 0.58, p = 0.561, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.04)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(302.37) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(336.39) = 0.17, p = 0.868, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.67 to 1.97)
resilisnce
1st
t(329.76) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)
2st
t(369.27) = 2.15, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.37)
social_provision
1st
t(313.90) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(351.08) = 2.99, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.83)
els_value_living
1st
t(311.83) = 0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)
2st
t(348.54) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.48)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(303.37) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)
2st
t(337.71) = 1.91, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.67)
els
1st
t(297.70) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.58)
2st
t(330.06) = 1.90, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.05 to 3.04)
social_connect
1st
t(303.31) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)
2st
t(337.63) = -1.94, p = 0.053, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.71 to 0.03)
shs_agency
1st
t(304.27) = 1.61, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.24)
2st
t(338.90) = 2.26, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.76)
shs_pathway
1st
t(314.81) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.01)
2st
t(352.18) = 2.24, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.15 to 2.24)
shs
1st
t(303.06) = 1.86, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.11 to 4.15)
2st
t(337.30) = 2.38, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.46 to 4.89)
esteem
1st
t(378.27) = -0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)
2st
t(412.71) = 0.43, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.51)
mlq_search
1st
t(352.01) = 1.65, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(391.25) = -0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.80)
mlq_presence
1st
t(324.59) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)
2st
t(363.58) = 1.09, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.72)
mlq
1st
t(329.54) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)
2st
t(369.03) = 0.56, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.32)
empower
1st
t(312.38) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)
2st
t(349.22) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.74)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(362.32) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.61)
2st
t(400.20) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.07)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(349.54) = -0.23, p = 0.820, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.67)
2st
t(388.99) = -1.18, p = 0.241, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.33)
sss_affective
1st
t(304.55) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(339.26) = -0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.55)
sss_behavior
1st
t(305.87) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(340.99) = -0.73, p = 0.466, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.61)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(303.42) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(337.78) = -0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.70)
sss
1st
t(292.75) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)
2st
t(323.10) = -0.71, p = 0.480, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.66 to 1.72)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(235.22) = 1.61, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.49)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(222.85) = 3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.35)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(219.39) = 4.36, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.97 to 2.57)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(224.48) = 1.77, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.66)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(222.01) = 3.16, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.34)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(219.17) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.06)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(226.32) = 4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.32)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(217.73) = -2.50, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.93 to -0.35)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(220.69) = 1.43, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.18)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(219.73) = 1.74, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.56)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(218.46) = 2.67, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.30)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(218.38) = 1.50, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.90)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(219.00) = 2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.06)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(218.08) = 2.02, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.91)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(222.48) = 3.26, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.84)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(219.97) = 1.69, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.76)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(219.64) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.11)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(218.25) = 2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.95)
els
1st vs 2st
t(217.29) = 3.00, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.95)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(218.24) = -3.15, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.22 to -0.74)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(218.39) = 2.51, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.53)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(220.12) = 2.68, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.40)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(218.19) = 2.86, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.52 to 2.83)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(229.74) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.35)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(225.86) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.51)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(221.67) = 2.38, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.45)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(222.45) = 1.26, p = 0.419, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.81)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(219.73) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.56)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(227.40) = 2.79, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.11)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(225.49) = -2.93, p = 0.007, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.34 to -0.26)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(218.44) = -3.66, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.42)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(218.66) = -2.85, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.23)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(218.25) = -3.61, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.43 to -0.42)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(216.45) = -3.92, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.84 to -1.27)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(223.83) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.28)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(216.25) = -0.72, p = 0.949, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.30)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(214.27) = 1.76, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.44)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(217.20) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.37)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(215.77) = 1.44, p = 0.305, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.85)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(214.15) = 1.77, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.75)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(218.29) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.53)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(213.34) = -2.41, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.72 to -0.27)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(215.01) = 1.32, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.09)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(214.47) = 1.22, p = 0.450, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.27)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(213.74) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.26)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(213.70) = 1.82, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.93)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(214.05) = 1.82, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.55)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(213.53) = 2.50, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.03)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(216.04) = 1.98, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.33)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(214.60) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.38)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(214.41) = 1.77, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.82)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(213.63) = 1.77, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)
els
1st vs 2st
t(213.09) = 2.07, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.50)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(213.62) = -1.44, p = 0.302, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.32)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(213.71) = 1.21, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.03)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(214.68) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.18)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(213.60) = 1.82, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.08 to 2.11)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(220.36) = -0.83, p = 0.816, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.17)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(218.02) = 2.44, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.31)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(215.57) = 2.03, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.27)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(216.02) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.32 to 2.42)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(214.46) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.50)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(218.93) = 1.04, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.67)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(217.80) = -1.56, p = 0.241, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.11)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(213.74) = -1.28, p = 0.403, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.16)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(213.86) = -1.87, p = 0.125, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.02)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(213.63) = -1.01, p = 0.632, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.24)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(212.62) = -1.67, p = 0.193, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.25 to 0.19)
Plot
