Table 3.
Cluster comparisons of demographic data, TTH subtypes, MIDAS, PSS, and CIRS items.
| TTH clusters | Total (n) | Missing value (n) |
P value† Chi-square |
P value† ANOVA |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 (46) | C2 (34) | C3 (46) | C4 (44) | 170 | |||||
| Age (mean ± SD) (n) |
45 ± 12 | 39 ± 11 | 37 ± 12 | 30 ± 9 | 143 | 27 | N/A | ≤0.001∗05 | |
| 44 | 33 | 37 | 29 | ||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Gender (n) | F | 35 | 27 | 30 | 28 | 120 | 0 | .307 | N/A |
| M | 11 | 7 | 16 | 16 | 50 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| Age range (n) | 20–29 | 6 | 8 | 17 | 24 | 55 | 4 | 0.001 ∗0125 | N/A |
| 30–39 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 12 | 44 | ||||
| 40–49 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 31 | ||||
| 50–59 | 14 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 26 | ||||
| 60+ | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 10 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| Marriage status (n) | Single | 13 | 10 | 16 | 25 | 64 | 5 | 0.047 | N/A |
| Married | 22 | 15 | 25 | 14 | 77 | ||||
| Partnered | 3 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 9 | ||||
| Divorced | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 13 | ||||
| Separated | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| Education level (n) | Postgraduate | 13 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 40 | 5 | 0.968 | N/A |
| Graduate | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | ||||
| Bachelor | 17 | 14 | 21 | 20 | 72 | ||||
| Diploma | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 19 | ||||
| TAFE | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 10 | ||||
| Secondary edu | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 14 | ||||
| Primary edu | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| Ethnicity a (n) | Oceania | 19 | 18 | 4 | 4 | 45 | 6 | ≤0.001∗0125 | N/A |
| European | 14 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 25 | ||||
| Arab | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Asian | 7 | 5 | 35 | 38 | 85 | ||||
| had >1 ethnicity | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 8 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| Ethnicity B (n) | Asian | 7 | 5 | 35 | 38 | 85 | 5 | ≤0.001 | N/A |
| Non-Asian | 39 | 28 | 7 | 6 | 80 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| TTH subtypes (n) | Infrequent ETTH | 1 | 1 | 7 | 15 | 24 | 0 | ≤0.001∗0125 | N/A |
| Frequent ETTH | 36 | 26 | 23 | 22 | 107 | ||||
| CTTH | 9 | 7 | 16 | 7 | 39 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| MIDAS item, n (%) | Q1 | 44 (1.07) | 33 (2.30) | 43 (2.74) | 44 (3.86) | 164 (7.771) | N/A | 0.408 | |
| Q2 | 44 (5.34) | 33 (9.67) | 43 (9.81) | 44 (5.50) | 164 (7.43) | N/A | 0.157 | ||
| Q3 | 44 (3.95) | 33 (6.82) | 43 (4.00) | 44 (3.23) | 164 (4.35) | N/A | 0.209 | ||
| Q4 | 44 (6.05) | 33 (8.15) | 43 (4.35) | 44 (2.93) | 164 (5.19) | N/A | 0.038 ∗ 05 | ||
| Q5 | 44 (2.18) | 33 (4.24)) | 432.65 | 443.86 | 164 (3.17) | N/A | 0.606 | ||
| MIDAS a | 44 (20.45) | 33 (26.73) | 43 (20.53) | 44 (15.82) | 164 (20.49) | N/A | 0.259 | ||
| MIDAS B | 44 (5.45) | 33 (6.30)v.4 | 43 (5.42) | 44 (4.68)v.2 | 164 (5.41) | N/A | 0.015 ∗ 05 | ||
| MIDAS SUM (mean score) | 44 (18.59) | 33 (31.18) | 43 (23.56) | 44 (19.39) | 164 (22.64) | N/A | .310 | ||
|
| |||||||||
| MIDAS grade, n (%) | Grade I | 12 (27%) | 3 (1%) | 14 (33%) | 22 (50%) | 51 (31%) | 0.017 ∗ 05 | N/A | |
| Grade II | 5 (11%) | 7 (21%) | 3 (7%) | 4 (9%) | 19 (12%) | ||||
| Grade III | 14 (32%) | 8 (24%) | 8 (19%) | 7 (16%) | 37 (23%) | ||||
| Grade IV | 13 (30%) | 15 (45%) | 18 (42%) | 11 (25%) | 57 (35%) | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| PSS score (score by item) | Sum | 16.68 | 16.19 | 18.79 | 15.11 | 16.72 | N/A | 0.092 | |
| Perceived distress | 9.85 | 10.06 | 10.22 | 7.52 | 9.39 | N/A | 0.066 | ||
| Perceived coping | 5.04v.3,4 | 5.18v.3,4 | 7.35∗v.1,2 | 7.59∗v.1,2 | 6.35 | N/A | ≤0.001∗017 | ||
|
| |||||||||
| Comorbidity checklist (number of items) | Somatic comorbidity | 46 | 34 | 46 | 44 | 42.9% | 0.588 | N/A | |
| Mental comorbidity | 8 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 12.9% | 0.060 | N/A | ||
Note 1: Australia is a county of immigration. In the section of ethnicity, the category of “had more than 1 ethnicity” indicated a group of participants in this country shares more than one ethnicity. For example, an Australian person may have his/her mother of Irish ethnicity and father of Greek. In such case, these participants may tick two options, and in data analysis, he/she was classified as participant had more than one ethnicity. Note 2: both Chi-square and ANOVA were applied to access cluster differences for comparison. Chi-square tests examine categorical outcomes, whereas ANOVA assesses the means of each cluster. P values correspond to comparisons between the clusters using Chi-square test or ANOVA, as appropriate. Note 3: in PSS-10, there are no cutoffs for “Perceived Distress” nor “Perceived Coping.” A lower score in “Perceived Coping” factor reflects better coping ability since the four positively stated items (4, 5, 7, and 8) in this factor are reversed scored and then summing across all items when calculating the overall score. Note 4: ∗05—the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level; ∗0125—the mean difference is significant at the 0.0125(0.05/4) level; ∗017—the mean difference is significant at the 0.017(0.05/3) level; “v” denotes the clusters differed with post hoc Bonferroni correction, whereas the “x (figure)” after “v” indicates specific cluster or clusters.