- Messages
- 86
- Location
- East of England
Sure. So all this data is the score at 2.5 years. Some people (those in the APT/SMC groups) had no sessions of CBT, some in the APT/SMC added a few sessions of CBT, so in total they had either 1-9 sessions or 10 sessions. People in the CBT/GEt groups had 15 sessions through the trial. Some had no more sessions (so 15 in total), some had a few more (so 1-9 +15 =16-24, or 10+15=25)
So to answer your second question In the first half of the graph only: the diamonds are people assigned to the APT arm and the squares are SMC arm. In the second half of the graph only: diamond is people assigned to the GET arm and squares are CBT arm.
I realise this isn't quite clear. I could add a legend but I think it will get a bit cluttered. Or I could average the two points (perhaps weighted by the number of people in each group). Thoughts?
(And yes, if they overlap, they look funny! They vary because, CBT/GET has no real effect )
@Anna Wood
Ahh, thank you for the clarifications. I'm not familiar with interpreting research results so I wasn't sure if the diamonds and squares were representative of a usual way of illustrating data that I wasn't aware of. I like that you have differentiated between SMC, APT, GET and CBT, although I do think the graph would benefit from a explanation of what the diamonds and squares represent.
It works well taking the SF36 PF up to 100 - it puts the results into context.
Sorry if I wasn't clear above but I'm still not sure what the 2.5 years covers. Is this follow up data with a beginning point at the end of the trial period and an end point 2.5 years later?