Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 14;52:101692. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101692

Table 3.

Primary and secondary outcomes.

Primary outcomes Reliable improvement
Reliable recovery
Reliable Deterioration
N OR 95% CI p N OR 95% CI p N OR 95% CI p
Full sample (unadjusted) 1,938,349 ·67 ·61, ·74 <·001 1,691,854 ·79 ·71, ·88 <·001 1,929,402 1·60 1·35, 1·89 <·001
PS matched (unadjusted) 2696 ·75 ·63, ·88 <·001 2383 ·75 ·64, ·88 ·001 2691 1·35 1·03, 1·78 ·029
PS matched (adjusted)a 2696 ·78 ·66, ·93 ·004 2378 ·79 ·66, ·94 ·006 2685 1·31 ·99, 1·75 ·062
Secondary outcomes PHQ-9 Change GAD-7 Change WSAS Change
N b se p N b se p N b se p
Full sample (unadjusted) 1,945,323 -1·11 ·17 <·001 1,945,323 -1·46 ·15 <·001 1,297,160 -2·10 ·29 <·001
PS matched (unadjusted) 2702 -1·14 ·26 <·001 2702 -·92 ·23 <·001 2000 -1·38 ·43 ·001
PS matched (adjusted)a 2702 -·93 ·23 <·001 2702 -·65 ·20 ·001 2000 -1·34 ·42 ·002

Logistic regression models were used for primary outcomes and linear regression models were used for secondary outcomes.

a

Adjusted for all matched variables (gender, ethnicity, employment status, LTC case, psychotropic medication, IMD decile, year of first appointment, age at referral, baseline PHQ-9, baseline GAD-7, waiting times referral to assessment, waiting time assessment to treatment) and number of IAPT sessions attended.