Table 7.
Positive and Negative Affect Scales outcome analysis with imputed data (N=221): intervention comparisons along the follow-up.
| Secondary outcomes | Time 1 (pretreatment) | Time 2 (posttreatment) | Time 3 (6 months) | Time 4 (12 months) | ||||||
| Positive Scale PANASa | ||||||||||
|
|
iTAUb vs HLPc | |||||||||
|
|
|
gd | 0.07 | –0.01 | 0.25 | 0.34 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .72 | .94 | .17 | .07 | ||||
|
|
|
βe (95% CI) | 0.45 (–1.96 to 2.85) | –0.12 (–3.47 to 3.23) | 2.24 (–1.00 to 5.48) | 3.36 (–0.30 to 7.01) | ||||
|
|
iTAU vs MPf | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | 0.14 | 0.00 | –0.16 | –0.33 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .44 | >.99 | .41 | .09 | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | –0.94 (–3.35 to 1.46) | –0.01 (–3.36 to 3.34) | 1.35 (–1.88 to 4.59) | 3.19 (–0.46 to 6.85) | ||||
|
|
iTAU vs PAPPg | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | 0.21 | 0.31 | 0.05 | –0.15 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .25 | .10 | .81 | .41 | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | –1.41 (–3.79 to 0.97) | –2.78 (–6.09 to 0.54) | –0.40 (–3.61 to 2.81) | 1.51 (–2.11 to 5.13) | ||||
|
|
HLP vs MP | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | 0.22 | –0.01 | 0.10 | 0.02 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .26 | .95 | .59 | .93 | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | –1.39 (–3.83 to 1.05) | 0.11 (–3.28 to 3.5) | –0.89 (–4.17 to 2.39) | –0.17 (–3.87 to 3.54) | ||||
|
|
HLP vs PAPP | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.3 | 0.19 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .13 | .12 | .11 | .32 | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | –1.86 (–4.27 to 0.56) | –2.66 (–6.02 to 0.71) | –2.64 (–5.89 to 0.61) | –1.85 (–5.52 to 1.82) | ||||
|
|
MP vs PAPP | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | 0.08 | 0.33 | 0.21 | 0.17 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .70 | .11 | .29 | .37 | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | –0.47 (–2.88 to 1.95) | –2.77 (–6.13 to 0.59) | –1.75 (–5.00 to 1.5) | –1.68 (–5.35 to 1.99) | ||||
| Negative Scale PANAS | ||||||||||
|
|
iTAU vs HLP | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | –0.12 | –0.32 | –0.16 | –0.36 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .52 | .09 | .39 | .07 | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | –1.02 (–4.18 to 2.14) | –2.81 (–6.04 to 0.42) | –1.37 (–4.51 to 1.78) | –3.15 (–6.51 to 0.21) | ||||
|
|
iTAU vs MP | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | –0.06 | 0.31 | 0.16 | 0.24 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .73 | .10 | .40 | .18 | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | 0.55 (–2.61 to 3.71) | –2.73 (–5.96 to 0.5) | –1.35 (–4.49 to 1.80) | –2.32 (–5.67 to 1.04) | ||||
|
|
iTAU vs PAPP | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | 0.25 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.41 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .19 | .11 | .11 | .03 h | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | –2.09 (–5.22 to 1.04) | –2.59 (–5.79 to 0.61) | –2.54 (–5.65 to 0.57) | –3.63 (–6.96 to –0.31) | ||||
|
|
HLP vs MP | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | –0.19 | –0.01 | 0.00 | –0.09 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .33 | .96 | .99 | .63 | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | 1.57 (–1.63 to 4.78) | 0.07 (–3.20 to 3.35) | 0.02 (–3.17 to 3.20) | 0.83 (–2.57 to 4.23) | ||||
|
|
HLP vs PAPP | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | 0.13 | –0.03 | 0.14 | 0.06 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .51 | .90 | .46 | .78 | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | –1.07 (–4.24 to 2.11) | 0.21 (–3.03 to 3.46) | –1.17 (–4.33 to 1.98) | –0.48 (–3.85 to 2.89) | ||||
|
|
MP vs PAPP | |||||||||
|
|
|
g | 0.3 | –0.02 | 0.15 | 0.14 | ||||
|
|
|
P value | .10 | .93 | .46 | .44 | ||||
|
|
|
β (95% CI) | –2.64 (–5.82 to 0.53) | 0.14 (–3.10 to 3.38) | –1.19 (–4.35 to 1.96) | –1.32 (–4.69 to 2.06) | ||||
aPANAS: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule.
biTAU: improved treatment as usual.
cHLP: healthy lifestyle program.
dg: Hedge’s effect size measure.
eβ: regression coefficient.
fMP: mindfulness program.
gPAPP: positive affect promotion program.
hStatistically significant values (P<.05) are shown in italics.