Table 2.

Effect of THR on animal care score and animal abuse propensity scores ^a.

Intent-To-Treat Analysis a,b	THR			BA (Control)			Interaction (Efficacy)
	Baseline	EoT	Change	Baseline	EoT	Change
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD) d	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SEM) d	Mean (SEM)	p-Value	ES c
Animal abuse propensity score (sum of C15, C16, C17, C19, C20)	5.52 (3.40)	5.48 (4.03)	0.28 (0.59)	4.53 (3.42)	4.63 (2.75)	0.26 (0.56)	0.02 (0.81)	0.984	0.01
Animal care score (Sum of B7, B8, B9, B11, B12 and (4-B13)	13.59 (4.36)	15.40 (3.51)	1.84 (0.58) **	15.78 (3.17)	15.17 (4.20)	−0.22 (0.55)	2.06 (0.80)	0.013	0.74
B8. My child has a good relationship with our pet/s	2.59 (1.05)	3.08 (0.91)	0.48 (0.16) **	3.17 (0.91)	2.96 (0.91)	−0.13 (0.15)	0.62 (0.22)	0.008	0.76
B9. My child acts in a caring manner towards our pet/s	2.81 (0.96)	3.20 (0.91)	0.35 (0.15) *	3.17 (0.85)	2.88 (1.12)	−0.19 (0.14)	0.54 (0.21)	0.012	0.76

^a Sample means and standard deviation were reported for baseline and end of treatment (EoT). Mean and standard errors of change and the time by group interaction are from mixed effects model analysis of baseline and EoT data for all the outcome variables. ^b Analyses included all participants who were randomized into the THR or BA group of the primary trial, eligible for this nested study and had either baseline and/or EoT assessment (31 THR and 36 BA participants were analyzed; 27 THR and 36 BA participants had baseline data and 25 THR and 24 BA participants had EoT data). ^c Effect size (ES) is calculated $\left(2\times t value\right)/\sqrt{DF}$ (DF: degree of freedom) from the contrast of the time by group interaction. ^d *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.