We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Given the many statistical analysis options used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions and the lack of clear guidance for analysis selection, the present study aimed to characterize the predominate statistical analyses utilized in RCTs in palliative care and behavioral research and to highlight the relative strengths and weaknesses of each of these methods as guidance for future researchers and reform.
Methods
All RCTs published between 2015 and 2021 were systematically extracted from 4 behavioral medicine journals and analyzed based on prespecified inclusion criteria. Two independent raters classified each of the manuscripts into 1 of 5 RCT analysis strategies.
Results
There was wide variation in the methods used. The 2 most prevalent analyses for RCTs were longitudinal modeling and analysis of covariance. Application of method varied significantly by sample size.
Significance of results
Each statistical analysis presents its own unique strengths and weaknesses. The information resulting from this research may prove helpful for researchers in palliative care and behavioral medicine in navigating the variety of statistical methods available. Future discussion around best practices in RCT analyses is warranted to compare the relative impact of interventions in a more standardized way.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.