Table 2.
FACTOR | UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OR (95% CI), P VALUE |
MODEL 1* (BIC=133.09) OR (95% CI), P VALUE |
MODEL 2* (BIC=124.32) OR (95% CI), P VALUE |
---|---|---|---|
Asking Socratic questions | 5.31 (1.59-17.72), P=.01 | 5.89 (1.32-26.25), P=.02 | 5.39 (1.27-22.84), P=.02 |
Providing summaries at consultation end | 4.94 (1.74-14.07), P<.01 | 5.30 (1.40-20.08), P=.01 | 4.72 (1.37-16.32), P=.01 |
Participating in a supervised education group | 2.60 (1.22-5.56), P=.01 | 1.09 (0.35-3.35), P=.88 | 1.06 (0.34-3.25), P=.92 |
Having fixed time for CBT | 2.78 (1.21-6.37), P=.02 | 1.44 (0.45-4.58), P=.54 | 1.44 (0.46-4.47), P=.53 |
Participating in a refresher course | 2.90 (1.34-6.26), P=.01 | 3.52 (1.04-11.86), P=.04 | 3.32 (1.01-10.95), P=.05 |
Having an office colleague who uses CBT | 4.02 (1.42-11.35), P=.01 | 1.99 (0.50-7.89), P=.33 | 2.09 (0.56-7.89), P=.28 |
Having economic incentives | 2.60 (1.10-6.13), P=.03 | 1.89 (0.54-6.67), P=.32 | 1.82 (0.53-6.30), P=.34 |
Providing psychoeducation | 1.88 (0.71-4.95), P=.20 | 0.76 (0.21-2.81), P=.68 | NA |
Assigning homework | 2.59 (0.81-8.24), P=.11 | 0.86 (0.16-4.49), P=.86 | NA |
Setting an agenda | 0.75 (0.28-2.06), P=.58 | NA | NA |
Using problem lists | 1.12 (0.31-4.07), P=.86 | NA | NA |
Reviewing homework | 1.36 (0.30-6.13), P=.69 | NA | NA |
Using the ABC model | 1.30 (0.35-4.85), P=.69 | NA | NA |
Assigning a daily activity log | 1.33 (0.55-3.20), P=.52 | NA | NA |
Discussing the panic cycle | 0.97 (0.40-2.36), P=.94 | NA | NA |
Using the anxiety curve | 1.69 (0.66-4.29), P=.27 | NA | NA |
Using a case formulation approach | 0.60 (0.25-1.46), P=.26 | NA | NA |
Evaluation | 1.11 (0.46-2.70), P=.81 | NA | NA |
Cooperating with local specialists | 1.32 (0.54-3.21), P=.54 | NA | NA |
Having patients experience positive effects | 2.03 (0.61-6.72), P=.25 | NA | NA |
ABC—Activating event, Belief, Consequence32; BIC—Bayesian information criteria; CBT—cognitive behavioural therapy; NA—not applicable; OR—odds ratio.
Models 1 and 2 are based on variables with P≤.20 and P≤.05, respectively, from the univariate analysis. Model 2 was chosen for the analysis because of its smaller BIC estimate.