For the additional analyses we explored the partnership anywhere between participants’ baseline risk/warning sign peak and their utilization of the program (Desk step 3)

For the additional analyses we explored the partnership anywhere between participants’ baseline risk/warning sign peak and their utilization of the program (Desk step 3)

For the additional analyses we explored the partnership anywhere between participants’ baseline risk/warning sign peak and their utilization of the program (Desk step 3)

The results show that baseline characteristics were only loosely correlated with the number of logins, completed monitoring assessments, page hits, and forum visits, while stronger associations were found with the more intense parts of the intervention (forum posts and chat participations). In addition, age was correlated with utilization between rspearman=.17 (age ? logins) and rspearman=.25 (age ? forum visits; all p < .01). 1.

Most of the correlations of Body mass index which have use was indeed less than

All the correlations from Body mass index which have utilization were lower than

Every correlations from Bmi that have usage was below

All correlations off Bmi which have utilization were below

All correlations away from Body mass index with utilization was lower than

Most of the correlations away from Body mass index which have usage was indeed lower than

Most of the correlations regarding Bmi having application was indeed lower than

All the correlations regarding Body mass index that have utilization was lower than

Every correlations away from Body mass index that have usage was basically less than

Most of the correlations regarding Body mass index having application had been lower than

Most of the correlations out-of Body mass index that have use have been below

Most of the correlations regarding Body mass index that have use was basically less than

All correlations away from Body mass index having utilization had been below

All the correlations regarding Bmi that have use was in fact below

Every correlations regarding Body mass index that have application was indeed less than

Every correlations out-of Bmi having application were lower than

The correlations from Body mass index which have application had been lower than

https://www.datingranking.net/pl/sexsearch-recenzja

Total(Letter = step 3,548) School(Letter = 2,739) Online link(Letter = 255) Needed by friend(N = 141) Flyer/poster(Letter = 118) Most other (Letter = 295) Try statistics p
Note. Logins = level of logins in order to ProYouth; Monitorings = quantity of finished overseeing surveys; Forum postings = quantity of benefits with the discussion board; Chats = involvement in on the web guidance talk training (classification otherwise personal); Webpage hits = number of pages accessed on the fellow member urban area (i. e., just after login); Message board check outs = amount of profiles reached on the discussion board (we. elizabeth., immediately after log in); IQR= inter quartile Diversity; * = average test.
Logins* M (Md [IQR]) 3.9 (0 [0–1]) step one.step three (step one [0–1]) thirteen.4 (2 [1–5]) 20.cuatro (step 1 [1–3]) 6.dos (step one [0–3]) eleven.step 3 (1 [0–4]) ?2(4) = 327.six <.001
Monitorings* Meters (Md [IQR]) 1.step three (0 [0–1]) 0.eight (0 (0–0]) step 3.9 (step 1 [0–3]) dos.6 (0 [0–2]) dos.5 (0 [0–2]) 3.eight (step 1 [0–3]) ?2(4) = 308.six <.001
Forum listings % 3.3 1.4 11.4 9.nine 5.step one ten.2 ?2(4) = 150.dos <.001
Chats % step 3.0 step 1.step one ten.2 11.4 8.5 eight.8 ?2(4) = 150.eight <.001
Web page hits* Yards (Md [IQR]) 34.step 1 (cuatro [0–15]) 12.8 (dos [0–11]) 129.seven (19 [2–53]) 116.0 (thirteen [3–34]) 63.4 (11 [0–28]) 98.8 (fifteen [0–39]) ?2(4) = 223.6 <.001
Discussion board visits* M (Md [IQR]) 5.5 (0 [0–0]) 1.1 (0 [0–0]) 21.dos (1 [0–7]) 27.cuatro (0 [0–3]) 8.nine (0 [0–2]) 21.0 (0 [0–3]) ?2(4) = 585.2 <.001
Intercourse WCS > 57 Binge eating Laxatives Vomiting Low-energy food Do it Bingeing and nausea Earlier in the day texas
Note. Logins = number of logins to ProYouth; Monitorings = number of completed monitoring questionnaires; Community forum postings = number of contributions to the forum; Chats = participation in online counseling chat session (group or individual); Webpage moves = number of pages accessed in the participant area (i. e., after login); Community forum check outs = number of pages accessed in the forum (i. e., after login); WCS = Weight Concerns Scale; tx = treatment; OR = odds ratio; rspearman = Spearman rank correlations; CI = confidence interval; **p <. 01.
Logins rspearman .18** .21** .13** .04** .14** .15** .00 .14** .14**
Monitorings rspearman .23** .22** .13** .07** .14** .17** .02 .17** .14**
Page hits rspearman .17** .21** .14** .05** .14** .14** .00 .14** .15**
Forum visits rspearman .18** .25** .17** .13** .20** .19** .01 .20** .23**
Forum posts Otherwise [CI] cuatro.step three [dos.3–8.1] 5.step three [3.6–7.9] 2.eight [step one.9–4.0] step three.eight [dos.2–6.1] 4.step 3 [dos.9–six.4] step three.8 [2.5–5.7] step one.2 [0.8–step 1.7] Otherwise = step three.8 [dos.5–5.8] Otherwise = 5.step 3 [step three.5–8.0]
Chats Or [CI] 47.seven [6.6–341] ten.six [six.5–17.1] step three.8 [dos.5–5.7] dos.six [step 1.5–4.7] 5.4 [step three.6–8.2] eight.5 [cuatro.6–twelve.4] step one.4 [step one.0–dos.1] Otherwise = cuatro.six [step 3.0–seven.1] Otherwise = dos.9 [step 1.8–cuatro.7]