Table 2.
Feasibility of the Trial Methodology and Delivering the EMIcompass Intervention
| mean (S.D.)/ % | n (%) | Target | Evaluation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility of the trial methodology | ||||
| (a) Recruitment, n | 163 | >95 | Green | |
| (b) Assessment of eligibility criteria, n | 163 | 95% | Green | |
| (c) Randomization, n (%) | 92 (100%) | 92 | Green | |
| (d) Retention for outcome assessment at at least one time point (n, retention rate in %) | 90 (98%) | >85% | Green | |
| Feasibility of delivering the EMIcompass intervention | ||||
| (e) Satisfaction with the EMIcompass intervention | Green | |||
| Satisfaction rating‡, mean (S.D.) | 6.11 (0.99) | 44 | >4 | |
| MARS quality rating‡‡, mean (S.D.) | 3.63 (0.58) | 24 | >3 | |
| (f) Compliance and adherence | Green | |||
| Session attendance, in % | 96% | 43 | ≥80% | |
| Study therapist rating of core components delivered, in % | 93% | 43 | ≥80% | |
| Number of EMI tasks completed per person per week, mean (S.D.), range | 14.62 (16.93), 1–55 |
45 | ≥1 | |
| (g) Fidelity to session protocol | Green | |||
| Independent rating of core components delivered, in % | 80% | 20 | ≥80% | |
| Ability to model and embody the spirit of compassion | ||||
| Therapist self-rating‡‡‡‡, mean (S.D.) | 4.29 (0.69) | 17 | ≥3 | |
| Independent rating ‡‡‡‡, mean (S.D.) | 4.69 (0.48) | 16 | ≥3 | |
| Micro-skills in compassion-focused therapy | ||||
| Therapist self-rating‡‡‡‡, mean (S.D.) | 3.98 (0.55) | 44 | ≥3 | |
| Independent rating ‡‡‡‡, mean (S.D.) | 4.50 (0.69) | 20 | ≥3 | |
Note: n, number of participants; S.D., standard deviation; MARS, Mobile Application Rating Scale.
‡Satisfaction rating on a 7-point scale;
‡‡MARS quality rating on a 5-point scale (n = 24 responses due to the scale being added after approval of an ethics amendment).
‡‡‡Number of EMI tasks completed per person over a 6-month intervention period: mean = 75.84 (SD = 85.09).
‡‡‡‡fidelity rating on a 5-point scale.