Differences among participants' response to a wellness intervention for individuals with spinal cord injuries.
Stephanie L Silveira, Tracey A Ledoux, Craig A Johnston and 5 others
PMID 31558388WHAT IT FOUND
In this small analysis, single or divorced participants and those under 50 were more likely to not respond to a wellness program for spinal cord injury.
This does not prove the program works, but suggests who might need different support.
Key findings
01Participants who did not respond to the intervention were more likely to be single or divorced and under 50 years old.
02Responders started with significantly greater secondary condition severity and fewer health-promoting behaviors than non-responders.
03The decision tree model incorrectly predicted response group status for 28% of cases.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Very small sample size (n=29) limits statistical power and stability of the decision tree model. The analysis is a secondary exploration of a pilot intervention that showed no significant group-level differences in the primary study. Confounding variables such as years post-injury and disability status could not be adequately controlled. The study did not measure perceptions of peer support or other social factors that might explain the findings.
Declared interests
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the findings as evidence that the wellness intervention is effective or ineffective for specific groups. The primary trial showed no group-level benefit, and this small secondary analysis only identifies potential associations with non-response, not causal effects.