Skip to main content

Table 2 Mean difference in outcome measures between groups

From: Using mixed methods evaluation to assess the feasibility of online clinical training in evidence based interventions: a case study of cognitive behavioural treatment for low back pain

Outcome measure

Workshop

iBeST

Mean difference

P-value

Effect sizea

mean (SD)

N

mean (SD)

N

(95 % CI)

(95 % CI)

Cognitive Therapy Scale-Revised-Pain (CTS-R Pain)c

2.08 (0.33)

7

1.90 (0.18)

5

0.17 (−0.2; 0.54)

0.32

−0.59

(−1.78; 0.59)

Knowledgec

25.53 (3.27)

16

26.5 (2.96)

15

0.97 (−1.33; 3.26)

0.4

0.30

(−0.41; 1.01)

Change in Psychosocial Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT): biomedical subscaleb

−8.1 (4.07)

16

−0.67 (4.87)

14

−7.43 (−10.97; −3.89)

< 0.01

−1.62

(−2.46; −0.78)

Change in PABS-PT: psychosocial subscalec

2.83 (5.67)

16

−0.52 (3.52)

14

3.35 (−0.19; 6.89)

0.06

−0.68

(−1.42; 0.06)

Self-efficacy: individual assessmentc

7.38 (1.58)

16

5.65 (1.95)

15

1.73 (0.43; 3.03)

0.01

−0.95

(−1.70; −0.20)

Self-efficacy: group sessionsc

6.45 (2.50)

16

6.3 (1.75)

15

0.25 (−1.7; 0.7)

0.34

−0.07

(−0.77; 0.64)

Satisfactionc

4.69 (0.48)

16

3.73 (0.70)

15

0.95 (0.52; 1.39)

< 0.01

−1.57

 

(−2.39; −0.75)

  1. aNegative effect size favours face-to-face workshop; bA decrease in or lower score indicates an improvement on this variable; cA increase in or higher score indicates an improvement on this variable