Table 3.
Post hoc generalized linear mixed effects regressions for effects of Eating As Treatment training on individual patient-rated alliance items
| Intervention phase | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Intervention | 95% CI | ||||||
| Therapeutic Alliance itema | Crude M (SD) | Adjusted M (SE) | Crude M (SD) | Adjusted M (SE) | β | p | Lower limit | Upper limit |
| 1. Support | 6.74 (0.75) | 6.72 (0.06) | 6.71 (0.74) | 6.97 (0.10) | −.24 | .032* | −0.46 | −0.02 |
| 2. Agree | 6.66 (0.81) | 6.64 (0.08) | 6.67 (0.72) | 6.87 (0.11) | −.24 | .072 | −0.50 | 0.02 |
| 3. Partnership | 6.40 (1.57) | 6.56 (0.16) | 6.55 (1.36) | 6.83 (0.24) | −.27 | .318 | −0.81 | 0.27 |
| 4. Patient confidence | 6.69 (0.79) | 6.62 (0.09) | 6.63 (0.91) | 7.13 (0.14) | −.50 | .002* | −0.81 | −0.19 |
| 5. Dietitian confidence | 6.71 (0.80) | 6.79 (0.07) | 6.78 (0.61) | 7.03 (0.10) | −.24 | .039* | −0.46 | −0.01 |
Mean scores adjusted for time point, site, and wave.
aItem 1, “My dietitian is supportive”; Item 2, “My dietitian and I agree about how to work together”; Item 3, “My dietitian and I have difficulty working jointly as a partnership”; Item 4, “I have confidence in my dietitian and his/her techniques”; and Item 5, “My dietitian is confident in him/herself and his/her techniques.”
*p < .05.