The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:
-
Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.
-
Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.
-
Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.
-
Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Can anyone make sense of table 3 in this study? As I read it, none of the numbers add up. For example, in the "PAL: total no. errors" section, they claim a large difference between placebo and intervention with p < 0.001, but the change from baseline looks about the same in both groups. Also, the change from baseline in both groups is about 8 points, but they report about 5.
I've read a lot of scientific papers before, and I can usually make sense of them, but I have no idea what's going on here. Is this some kind of error, or are they using a convention I don't understand?
My best guess would be that it's something to do with the note at the bottom of the table where it says that all model results are adjusted for baseline SNAQ score. Like maybe the pre and post values are raw averages in each group, but the differences are model outputs from a model that includes an additional variable? I don't know though -- I was thrown off by the first line of that table, where the estimated coefficient, 0.58, isn't inside its own 95% CI, (1.08, 2.24).
Maybe? But there was only a 1.1-point difference in SNAQ score (range: 4-20), so I don't see how that could lead to such a large adjusted difference, nor does it explain the discrepancy between baseline, end value, and "change from baseline."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link