. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Apr 11.

Published in final edited form as: Chronic Illn. 2011 Aug 12;7(4):267–278. doi: 10.1177/1742395311409259

Table 3. Variation in Intervention Effects Across Complexity Levels.

	Low (N=72)		Medium (N=117)		High ((N=102)		Interaction

	CBT	Control	CBT	Control	CBT	Control	p-value(c)
N	43	29	56	61	46	56
Systolic BP (mmHg)							0.004
Predicted Value	128.3	127.4	128.2	132.7	131.8	140.4
Intervention Effect	0.9		-4.5		-8.5(b)
Diastolic BP (mmHg)							0.01
Predicted Value	78.4	78.0	75.6	76.9	75.9	80.2
Intervention Effect	0.5		-1.4		-4.3(b)
Steps(a)							<.001
Predicted Value	5988	4490	3983	2896	3503	3054
Intervention Effect	1498(b)		1087(b)		449
BDI Depression							<.001
Predicted Value	9.0	17.8	15.0	18.2	16.9	19.7
Intervention Effect	-8.8(b)		-3.2		-2.7
A1c							0.12
Predicted Value	7.21	7.55	7.81	7.45	8.21	8.12
Intervention Effect	-0.3		0.4		0.1

Note: In MANOVA models including terms for randomization group and complexity level, intervention groups were significantly different with respect to systolic BP, diastolic BP, step counts, and BDI. Predicted endpoint values were calculated based on regression models that controlled for differences in baseline values and secular trends.

(a) 214 patients with other outcome data provided data on baseline and follow-up ste-counts. N's of CBT and Control patients with ste-count data were as follows: Low complexity 27 and 37, Medium complexity: 50 and 34, High complexity: 42 and 24.

(b) Statistically significant (p<.05) intervention group differences within that complexity stratum.